On 16 October 2016 at 22:13, Davide Italiano <dav...@freebsd.org> wrote:
> 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?

I agree. Having clang known if it is using gold or lld is probably not worth it.

cfe-commits mailing list

Reply via email to