jyknight added a comment. In D134550#3813269 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D134550#3813269>, @aaron.ballman wrote:
> Alternatively, perhaps those experimental options should be exposed from the > driver instead of being a cc1-only flag? IMO: yes. If we want end-users to use a particular flag, we should expose it as a Driver flag. If we want to reserve the right to change or delete it, putting "experimental" in the name conveys that -- significantly more than telling users to spell the flag `-Xclang -foo` does. There's a real underlying problem here that the name `-Xclang` seems like "clang-specific flag" not "unstable internal API don't depend on me" -- to everyone who is not a Clang Driver developer... Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D134550/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D134550 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
