[clang] [Driver,CrossWindows] Remove -isystem-after (PR #84121)

2024-03-14 Thread Paul T Robinson via cfe-commits
pogo59 wrote: > Do we know the users of *-windows-itanium triples? I think @bd1976bris might have been using that triple for testing the dllimport/visibility intersection. I've lost track and don't know what state that's in now, and whether the triple is still used by us.

[clang] [Driver,CrossWindows] Remove -isystem-after (PR #84121)

2024-03-13 Thread Saleem Abdulrasool via cfe-commits
compnerd wrote: I don't see why removing the help text is not sufficient to handle the issue? Even if no major players are using it, I think that there are people using it. It is a fairly self-contained bit of support. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/84121

[clang] [Driver,CrossWindows] Remove -isystem-after (PR #84121)

2024-03-13 Thread Fangrui Song via cfe-commits
MaskRay wrote: > > Facebook was using it at one point (can't say if they are currently), I > > know that Sony had some interested users as well. > > Yes, the order matters - that was the reason that the flag was implemented > > in the first place. > > Cc @smeenai @pogo59 on whether this

[clang] [Driver,CrossWindows] Remove -isystem-after (PR #84121)

2024-03-13 Thread Fangrui Song via cfe-commits
MaskRay wrote: > Facebook was using it at one point (can't say if they are currently), I know > that Sony had some interested users as well. > > Yes, the order matters - that was the reason that the flag was implemented in > the first place. Cc @smeenai @pogo59 on whether this option is

[clang] [Driver,CrossWindows] Remove -isystem-after (PR #84121)

2024-03-13 Thread Saleem Abdulrasool via cfe-commits
compnerd wrote: Perhaps the better approach here is to either indicate that it is only supported on a particular target or to drop the help information rather than removing the feature. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/84121 ___ cfe-commits

[clang] [Driver,CrossWindows] Remove -isystem-after (PR #84121)

2024-03-13 Thread Saleem Abdulrasool via cfe-commits
compnerd wrote: Facebook was using it at one point (can't say if they are currently), I know that Sony had some interested users as well. Yes, the order matters - that was the reason that the flag was implemented in the first place. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/84121

[clang] [Driver,CrossWindows] Remove -isystem-after (PR #84121)

2024-03-13 Thread Fangrui Song via cfe-commits
MaskRay wrote: @compnerd https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/84121 ___ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits

[clang] [Driver,CrossWindows] Remove -isystem-after (PR #84121)

2024-03-06 Thread Fangrui Song via cfe-commits
MaskRay wrote: > I'm not so sure that it is that simple. `-idirafter` and `-isystem-after` > have slightly different semantics. They impact ordering and warning > suppression. If there are alternative flags that can be used to control > those, that might be reasonable. Do we know the users

[clang] [Driver,CrossWindows] Remove -isystem-after (PR #84121)

2024-03-05 Thread via cfe-commits
llvmbot wrote: @llvm/pr-subscribers-clang-driver @llvm/pr-subscribers-clang Author: Fangrui Song (MaskRay) Changes Commit 88879e6559a3ae8593e32568900707b1dbf3f060 added -isystem-after (not in GCC) for CrossWindows (see 543a78b55ee993c2977fc2984f278f7ec0125765; *-windows-itanium). I have

[clang] [Driver,CrossWindows] Remove -isystem-after (PR #84121)

2024-03-05 Thread Fangrui Song via cfe-commits
https://github.com/MaskRay created https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/84121 Commit 88879e6559a3ae8593e32568900707b1dbf3f060 added -isystem-after (not in GCC) for CrossWindows (see 543a78b55ee993c2977fc2984f278f7ec0125765; *-windows-itanium). I have heard two reports that the documented