On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 5:13 AM, Rafael EspĂndola < rafael.espind...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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. > Sure, that seems reasonable to me as well. For example, there is now a clang option-flto-jobs=N that hooks up to the gold plugin option jobs=N option, and you would get that automatically without having to wire it in. Erroring on any unrecognized options would be good too. Teresa > Cheers, > Rafael > -- Teresa Johnson | Software Engineer | tejohn...@google.com | 408-460-2413
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits