davide added a comment. In http://reviews.llvm.org/D21006#449365, @mehdi_amini wrote:
> I'm not sure it is consistent with how we handle -flto, for instance -c means > usually to output an object file, but adding -flto indicates to dump bitcode > instead. I see two alternative approaches: 1. Force all the downstream consumers to pass -fno-lto (as I'm doing right now) together with -S. I don't like this option. 2. Make -flto and -S incompatible (and add a warning or an error) and have people that really want to emit llvm to use -emit-llvm instead? http://reviews.llvm.org/D21006 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
