On Jul 12, 2011, at 3:31 PM, Eric Christopher wrote: > I can see where you're going with this, I think I'd rather use -target for > this sort of situation though. More options aren't necessarily better. :) > > So, in my ideal world, here's how I think this would work: > > clang -arch foo > This will compile for the architecture listed with the current os and > environment of the host > > clang -target a-b-c > This will compile for the full triple listed, or alternately, whatever we > think is reasonable to parse out of the target field (i.e. we may want more > options in order to decide which toolchain to pick)
+1, but should -target be -triple? We can use -target when we have some target/toolchain description mechanism. > clang -march > This unfortunate option is around for compatibility, it'll select a sub arch > if used from a single architecture compile, error otherwise. > clang -mcpu > Ditto. I think that these should fall into "do whatever gcc does for compatibility" camp. > clang -mtune > Slightly more interesting here. It should definitely error if there's more > than one architecture listed for now, but there's definitely room for a "I > want a way to tune for an architecture, but run on a different one" > > Under the covers we'll want to support things like OS headers, libraries, > subprograms to invoke based on the actual "toolchain" we've selected from the > universal driver. In this case "toolchain" means a target with associated > directives for compiling, assembling, linking, etc including cross > compilation support. I'd like to get most, if not all, of these from within a > tablegen description as well. > > What do you think? Does anyone else have any additional comments? Keep in > mind that comments should be backed up with code (or proven code history in > this area) I don't want this to turn into a bike shed discussion. -Chris _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
