mstorsjo added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D51440#1220925, @phosek wrote:
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D51440#1218859, @mstorsjo wrote: > > > I'll see if I can get to looking at that sometime soon. I had this patch > > lying around as an attempt to work around the libtool issue in > > https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=27866 which doesn't seem to > > be going anywhere (and even if it did, it probably takes quite a bit of > > time before a new libtool release is made and it gets propagated to most > > places where I'd like to use this), and was curious if there was any > > specific reason for having this the way it was, or just the usual; > > historical reasons that it has started out like this and haven't had a need > > to change until now. If you otherwise would happen to be touching the same > > areas, feel free to pick it up ;-) otherwise I'll try to look at addressing > > your points in a few days. > > > I'd be happy to pick this up. I already planned to do more > refactoring/cleanup of this part of the driver. @beanz is improving the > Darwin toolchain driver to make more like other Clang drivers, so I want to > first sync up with him to make sure this is also going to work for them. Oh, great - thanks a lot! Repository: rC Clang https://reviews.llvm.org/D51440 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
