jamieschmeiser wrote: @cyndyishida From https://clang.llvm.org/compatibility.html: `Clang strives to both conform to current language standards (up to C11 and C++11) and also to implement many widely-used extensions available in other compilers, so that most correct code will "just work" when compiled with Clang. However, Clang is more strict than other popular compilers, and may reject incorrect code that other compilers allow.` I suspect that when it comes to extentions, each is considered on a case-by-case basis but I think that, in general, Clang tries to maintain option compatibility with gcc/g++. It aids in portability between compilers and platforms which may not support one or the other compiler. Particular vendors/platforms, however, may, or may not, support various gnu extensions or have conflicting options in their particular versions of Clang or in their legacy compilers (eg, earlier non-Clang-based compilers). I think that, in general, silently ignoring options that are not supported is a disservice to the user in that it misleads them into thinking that some functionality is there when it is not. -F is a darwin specific option in g++ so unless a target platform chooses to also support this option, it should be flagged as an error. I plan to introduce code in the future that will flag -F as an error on non-darwin targets for this reason. It remains to be seen through the reviews whether the error becomes general for non-darwin targets or specific to particular target platforms. I will add you as a reviewer when I post the PR, if you wish.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/141614 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
