On Sun, Oct 16, 2016 at 6:43 PM, Sean Silva <chisophu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Nice to see this land!
> One nit:
> Currently, doesn't LLD/ELF ignore -plugin-opt? That will mean that if a user
> uses the "gold syntax" then LLD will silently ignore it, which isn't good.
> At the very least, can we issue an error if we see `-plugin-opt jobs=N` and
> suggest the LLD spelling?
> Or maybe just accept the gold syntax? Our current handling of `-plugin` and
> `-plugin-opt` is intended to make LLD transparently Do The Right Thing when
> LLD is invoked as if it were gold, so clearly gold compatibility is
> important enough for that. This suggests it is important enough to be
> compatible from a ThinLTO perspective too.

I agree with what you're suggesting.  My initial vote would be for
error'ing out on anything we can't understand that's passed via
`-plugin-opt` and see what breaks (and add incremental support for
every feature needed).
Teresa, Rafael, any opinions about it?


"There are no solved problems; there are only problems that are more
or less solved" -- Henri Poincare
cfe-commits mailing list

Reply via email to