I think that having -target=<triple> and --target <triple> only is awkward. Why have two version of the same option with different rules on whether they accept = or spaced arguments?
I think Gabor's patch makes sense as it does not break any backwards compatibility within clang itself and will only help people using the tool. The patch itself leaves some duplication in the Options.td file. Can't we combine "target_legacy_spelling_EQ" with "target"? And perhaps rename them both to just "target" and "target_EQ"? Thanks Rich > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:cfe-commits- > [email protected]] On Behalf Of Meador Inge > Sent: 18 February 2015 18:09 > To: [email protected]; Kristof Beyls; [email protected] > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [PATCH] Make the driver accept all four variants of the target > option > > Perhaps I am missing something, but how does having four variants for the > option make it less confusing as a cross compiler? Do we have a convention > on which clang long options have '=' forms? > > > REPOSITORY > rL LLVM > > http://reviews.llvm.org/D7730 > > EMAIL PREFERENCES > http://reviews.llvm.org/settings/panel/emailpreferences/ > > > > _______________________________________________ > cfe-commits mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
