jhuber6 wrote: > Why do we need a new binary for this, instead of having something like `clang > -cc1_nvlink` that calls a custom mode within clang? > > And if there's a good reason for that, could clang-linker-wrapper and > clang-nvlink-wrapper at least be the same binary?
Sorry, missed this in the deluge of build failures. I don't think this really fits with a different `-cc1` mode because it's just a linker step that we augment. To me, this is like suggesting we merge `ld.lld` into `clang` so we can do everything in a single invocation. It's certainly possible, but I think this fits alright into the workflow. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/96561 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
