Hi Chandler
Gabor’s patch seems uncontroversial to me and the new behaviour matches many other applications using unix getopt. Could you say why you think it is a mistake? Do you object to relaxing the mandatory ‘=’ or allowing both single and double – versions or both? Rich From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Chandler Carruth Sent: 11 March 2015 20:16 To: Renato Golin Cc: llvm cfe Subject: Re: r231787 - Allow -target= and --target options On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 6:58 AM, Renato Golin <[email protected]> wrote: Allow -target= and --target options Using clang as a cross-compiler with the 'target' option could be confusing for those inexperienced in the realm of cross compiling. This patch would allow the use of all these four variants of the target option: -target <triple> --target <triple> -target=<triple> --target=<triple> Previously we insisted on using --target= because we wanted that to be the consistent driver syntax for this option. I would prefer to continue to insist on that. I think offering choices here is a very serious mistake. This is our driver's flag, and we should have some freedom to specify its syntax. Could we go back to requiring explicitly '--target='?
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
