Any feedback? Thanks, --Serge
2018-02-28 0:02 GMT+07:00 Serge Pavlov via Phabricator < revi...@reviews.llvm.org>: > sepavloff marked an inline comment as done. > sepavloff added inline comments. > > > ================ > Comment at: include/clang/Driver/Options.td:1735 > + HelpText<"Whether to use IR type names (option: none, use)">, > + Values<"none,use">; > def relocatable_pch : Flag<["-", "--"], "relocatable-pch">, > Flags<[CC1Option]>, > ---------------- > rjmccall wrote: > > This is an unusual spelling for the option in a number of ways: > > - We generally don't use `--` options; I think all the ones we have > are strictly for legacy support. > > - A lot of similar options are in the `-f` or `-m` namespaces, > although that's not as consistent and we could reasonably make this an > exception. > > - `-foo=bar` options are generally used for options that are expected > to take a variety of different values; this seems basically boolean. Are > you expecting future growth here? > The option is in fact a three-state one, the third 'value' is absence of > the option. In this case the option value is calculated from the type of > action (produce ll file or not) and from the type of build (in debug builds > types are named by default). To avoid misunderstanding I added new value, > 'auto' for this purpose. > > The option was renamed to `-fir-type-names=` and it is not hidden anymore. > > > Repository: > rC Clang > > https://reviews.llvm.org/D43805 > > > >
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits