On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 5:13 AM, Rafael Espíndola <
> 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>
> >> Nice to see this land!
> >> One nit:
> >> Currently, doesn't LLD/ELF ignore -plugin-opt? That will mean that if a
> >> uses the "gold syntax" then LLD will silently ignore it, which isn't
> >> At the very least, can we issue an error if we see `-plugin-opt jobs=N`
> >> suggest the LLD spelling?
> >> Or maybe just accept the gold syntax? Our current handling of `-plugin`
> >> `-plugin-opt` is intended to make LLD transparently Do The Right Thing
> >> 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 Johnson | Software Engineer | tejohn...@google.com | 408-460-2413
cfe-commits mailing list