================
@@ -504,18 +511,23 @@ Expected<StringRef> clang(ArrayRef<StringRef> InputFiles,
const ArgList &Args) {
llvm::copy(LinkerArgs, std::back_inserter(CmdArgs));
}
- // Pass on -mllvm options to the clang invocation.
- for (const opt::Arg *Arg : Args.filtered(OPT_mllvm)) {
- CmdArgs.push_back("-mllvm");
- CmdArgs.push_back(Arg->getValue());
- }
+ // Pass on -mllvm options to the linker invocation.
+ for (const opt::Arg *Arg : Args.filtered(OPT_mllvm))
+ CmdArgs.push_back(
+ Args.MakeArgString("-Wl,-mllvm=" + StringRef(Arg->getValue())));
if (Args.hasArg(OPT_debug))
CmdArgs.push_back("-g");
if (SaveTemps)
CmdArgs.push_back("-save-temps");
+ if (SaveTemps && linkerSupportsLTO(Args))
----------------
Artem-B wrote:
My question is the origin of that option. E.g. is the user uses
`--save-temps=obj -o /some/other/dir/foo.o` at the top-level clang invocation,
what do we get if the offloading w/ the new driver and this patch are in effect?
Will the intermediate files end up in the current directory? In the object file
directory? Both? E.g clang's files end up in the object file directory, but
linker's intermediate files end up in the current dir? Or, perhaps not even
created, if clangs--save-temps are not propagated to the linker-wrapper.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/97573
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
