thakis added a comment.
I've reverted this in 309960, as discussed.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D33900
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
Cool, then let's revert this and add it back under a different flag. Thanks!
On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 1:37 PM, Dimitry Andric via Phabricator via
cfe-commits wrote:
> dim added a comment.
>
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D33900#824172, @thakis wrote:
>
> > dim: Does putting the target listing behi
dim added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D33900#824172, @thakis wrote:
> dim: Does putting the target listing behind a different flag work for you?
> Which problem are you trying to solve here?
I'm fine with a different flag. For the problem I was trying to solve, see my
earlier comm
thakis added a comment.
dim: Does putting the target listing behind a different flag work for you?
Which problem are you trying to solve here?
https://reviews.llvm.org/D33900
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm
hans added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D33900#822313, @mehdi_amini wrote:
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D33900#820281, @hans wrote:
>
> > In https://reviews.llvm.org/D33900#818968, @mehdi_amini wrote:
> >
> > > I think @thakis is right: this too verbose to be the default --version.
> >
mehdi_amini added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D33900#820281, @hans wrote:
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D33900#818968, @mehdi_amini wrote:
>
> > I think @thakis is right: this too verbose to be the default --version.
> > We likely shouldn't ship this in clang-5.0 (@hans).
>
>
> Let me
hans added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D33900#819237, @dim wrote:
> Also note that it is only added to the `--version` output, not the `-v`
> output (the former is really a "verbose" version of the latter):
Which seems to be the opposite of what gcc does (`gcc -v` is more verbose th
thakis added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D33900#819234, @dim wrote:
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D33900#818957, @thakis wrote:
>
> > Sorry, I just noticed this weeks later. Why are we adding this to
> > `--version` instead of adding some new flag for printing this? When I pass
> > `
dim added a comment.
Also note that it is only added to the `--version` output, not the `-v` output
(the former is really a "verbose" version of the latter):
$ clang -v
clang version 5.0.0 (trunk 308421)
Target: x86_64-unknown-freebsd12.0
Thread model: posix
InstalledDir: /share/dim/ll
dim added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D33900#818957, @thakis wrote:
> Sorry, I just noticed this weeks later. Why are we adding this to `--version`
> instead of adding some new flag for printing this? When I pass `--version`,
> I'm usually interested in clang's version and don't need
mehdi_amini added a comment.
Here is the current output:
clang version 5.0.0
Target: x86_64-apple-darwin16.6.0
Thread model: posix
InstalledDir: /Users/mamini/projects/llvm/./clangDebug/bin
Registered Targets:
aarch64- AArch64 (little endian)
aarch64_be - AArch64 (
thakis added a comment.
Sorry, I just noticed this weeks later. Why are we adding this to `--version`
instead of adding some new flag for printing this? When I pass `--version`, I'm
usually interested in clang's version and don't need a screenful of other
information below it (which makes the o
mehdi_amini accepted this revision.
mehdi_amini added a comment.
This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
LGTM
https://reviews.llvm.org/D33900
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/list
dim created this revision.
Other llvm tools display their registered targets when showing version
information, but for some reason clang has never done this.
To support this, https://reviews.llvm.org/D33899 adds the llvm parts, which
make it possible to
print version information to arbitrary raw
14 matches
Mail list logo
