[PATCH] D61670: [clang] [MinGW] Add the option -fno-autoimport

mstorsjo added a comment. In D61670#4621724 , @aeubanks wrote: > I don't have all the context here, but seems fine once the commit description > is updated with the new spelling Thanks. Yeah I've updated the commit message locally (I wonder if the `arc`

[PATCH] D61670: [clang] [MinGW] Add the option -fno-autoimport

aeubanks added a comment. I don't have all the context here, but seems fine once the commit description is updated with the new spelling Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D61670/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D61670

[PATCH] D61670: [clang] [MinGW] Add the option -fno-autoimport

mstorsjo updated this revision to Diff 553624. mstorsjo edited the summary of this revision. mstorsjo added a comment. Updated to use the form -fno-auto-import and similar split it into two separate words everywhere. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://rev

[PATCH] D61670: [clang] [MinGW] Add the option -fno-autoimport

mstorsjo added a comment. In D61670#4611790 , @aeubanks wrote: > In D61670#4607313 , @mstorsjo wrote: > >>> I expected the answer would be "yes", so I said "lgtm" and then phrased my >>> question very awkwardly. >>

[PATCH] D61670: [clang] [MinGW] Add the option -fno-autoimport

aeubanks added a comment. In D61670#4607313 , @mstorsjo wrote: >> I expected the answer would be "yes", so I said "lgtm" and then phrased my >> question very awkwardly. > > Ah, thanks for the clarification! > > Any opinion on the name, `-fno-autoimport` v

[PATCH] D61670: [clang] [MinGW] Add the option -fno-autoimport

mstorsjo added a comment. > I expected the answer would be "yes", so I said "lgtm" and then phrased my > question very awkwardly. Ah, thanks for the clarification! Any opinion on the name, `-fno-autoimport` vs `-fno-auto-import`, given the existing linker option `--disable-auto-import`? Repo

[PATCH] D61670: [clang] [MinGW] Add the option -fno-autoimport

rnk added a comment. In D61670#4604486 , @mstorsjo wrote: > In D61670#4604145 , @rnk wrote: > >> cc +@aeubanks @jyknight to consider using the code model for this purpose > > Hmm, I don't quite understand this comme

[PATCH] D61670: [clang] [MinGW] Add the option -fno-autoimport

mstorsjo added a comment. In D61670#4604145 , @rnk wrote: > cc +@aeubanks @jyknight to consider using the code model for this purpose Hmm, I don't quite understand this comment; do you suggest that we after all should use the code model for controlling t

[PATCH] D61670: [clang] [MinGW] Add the option -fno-autoimport

rnk accepted this revision. rnk added subscribers: aeubanks, jyknight. rnk added a comment. This revision is now accepted and ready to land. lgtm cc +@aeubanks @jyknight to consider using the code model for this purpose Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://

[PATCH] D61670: [clang] [MinGW] Add the option -fno-autoimport

mstorsjo added inline comments. Comment at: clang/include/clang/Driver/Options.td:1477 + "automatic dllimport, and enable support for it in the linker. " + "Enabled by default.">>; +} // let Flags = [TargetSpecific] I see that most similar `Bool