Agreed. We should define them as aliases to existing options without
On Sun, Oct 16, 2016 at 6:43 PM, Sean Silva via cfe-commits <
> 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.
> -- Sean Silva
> On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 10:42 AM, Davide Italiano via cfe-commits <
> email@example.com> wrote:
>> Author: davide
>> Date: Thu Oct 13 12:42:38 2016
>> New Revision: 284137
>> URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=284137&view=rev
>> [ThinLTO] Update doc to include lld (now supported).
>> Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D25537
>> Modified: cfe/trunk/docs/ThinLTO.rst
>> URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project/cfe/trunk/docs/ThinLTO.
>> --- cfe/trunk/docs/ThinLTO.rst (original)
>> +++ cfe/trunk/docs/ThinLTO.rst Thu Oct 13 12:42:38 2016
>> @@ -62,8 +62,8 @@ ThinLTO is currently supported for the f
>> - **ld64**:
>> Starting with `Xcode 8 <https://developer.apple.com/xcode/>`_.
>> -Additionally, support is being added to the *lld* linker.
>> +- **lld**:
>> + Starting with r284050 (ELF only).
>> @@ -109,6 +109,8 @@ be reduced to ``N`` via:
>> - ld64:
>> +- lld:
>> + ``-Wl,--thinlto-jobs=N``
>> cfe-commits mailing list
> cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits mailing list