Thanks Sean! r190281, feel free to correct/re-write.
================ Comment at: docs/CrossCompilationClang.rst:30 @@ +29,3 @@ +But Clang/LLVM is natively a cross-compiler, meaning that one set of +programs can compile to all targets by setting the -target option. But that +doesn't help finding the headers, libraries or binutils to generate ---------------- Stephen Kelly wrote: > You should use the --target=<tgt> form, not -target <tgt> I seem to have missed the discussion, is this a canonicalizaiton of Clang arguments? Are the single-dash options going to be deprecated some day? ================ Comment at: docs/CrossCompilation.rst:67 @@ +66,3 @@ +The basic option is to define the target architecture. For that, use +``-target <triple>``. If you don't specify the target, CPU names won't +match (since Clang assumes the host triple), and the compilation will ---------------- Stephen Kelly wrote: > You should use the --target=<tgt> form, not -target <tgt> > > http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.compilers.clang.devel/29975 Hi Stephen, As you can see, I have replied to that thread in agreement, but that's hardly a standard set forward. Is there a general rule that we should deprecate the old syntax, or is it just the preference of some? ================ Comment at: docs/CrossCompilation.rst:26-36 @@ +25,13 @@ + +In GCC world, every host/target combination has its own set of binaries, +headers, libraries, etc. So, it's usually simple to download a package +with all files in, unzip to a directory and point the build system to +that compiler, that will know about its location and find all it needs to +when compiling your code. + +But Clang/LLVM is natively a cross-compiler, meaning that one set of +programs can compile to all targets by setting the -target option. But that +doesn't help finding the headers, libraries or binutils to generate +target specific code. So you'll need special options to help Clang understand +what target you're compiling to, where are your tools, etc. + ---------------- Sean Silva wrote: > These two paragraphs baffle me. It's basically like "Cross-compilation with > GCC is easy, but clang arbitrarily doesn't do it that way and everything is > therefore much more difficult". Is that really the message you're trying to > get across? The way that this is written even makes the sentence "clang/llvm > is natively a cross-compiler" sound like a weakness, rather than a strength. > > Also, I'm not sure why it's necessary/relevant to devote a paragraph to how > GCC does things; does that help the reader understand anything? It seems like > the relevant comparison is with how native (i.e. non-cross) builds with > Clang/LLVM find headers/libraries/tools/etc. That was not my intention at all. I'll try to fix it. http://llvm-reviews.chandlerc.com/D1606 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
