On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 6:15 AM, Teresa Johnson <tejohn...@google.com>
> On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 5:13 AM, Rafael Espíndola <
> 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>
>> >> 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
>> >> 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
>> >> 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.
(In fact, since -flto-jobs=N is already hooked up to ld64's -mllvm -threads
option, once lld accepts the -plugin-opt version I can update this
documentation just to list the single clang option.
> Teresa Johnson | Software Engineer | tejohn...@google.com |
Teresa Johnson | Software Engineer | tejohn...@google.com | 408-460-2413
cfe-commits mailing list