rengolin added a comment. In http://reviews.llvm.org/D11153#204688, @logan wrote:
> I have some concern on the design of this change. IMO, it is unintuitive > that one `-l` option will affect the other `-l` options. Can't we simply > rely on `--rtlib=compiler-rt`? Or, alternatively, can we simply emit a > warning instead of changing the behavior quietly? Thanks. So, I did the original change, and that was a bad decision, which I only realised when trying to bundle RT with libc++. :) The idea here is that we should *only* add an unwinder and a C++ library IFF there isn't one yet. This may be an overly simplistic approach, but it's better than no approach. Since there's no way to remove libraries from the list (because the compiler adds them), there is no way a warning would be effective. Ie. the user would get a warning and would be able to do nothing. http://reviews.llvm.org/D11153 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@cs.uiuc.edu http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
