hans added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D53457#1271046, @neerajksingh wrote:
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D53457#1269769, @hans wrote: > > > I'm not completely convinced that we want this. So far we've used the > > strategy of promoting clang options that are also useful in clang-cl to > > core options, and if someone wants to use more clang than that, maybe > > clang-cl isn't the right driver for that use-case. > > > > But I suppose an argument could be made for having an escape hatch from > > clang-cl if it doesn't add too much complexity to the code. > > > This is a good point. However, having this escape hatch gets you and Reid and > others out of the business of having to promote options. Also, as new flags > are added to the compiler people might need one revision of the official > builds to realize they need a flag and one revision to get the flag added to > the binary release. This obviously isn't a problem for people building Clang > from source, but it does add unnecessary friction as I found myself. Yeah, let's add the escape hatch. > > >> I'm not sure I'm a fan of calling it /Xdriver: though, because what does it >> mean - clang-cl is the driver, but the option refers to the clang driver. >> The natural name would of course be -Xclang but that already means something >> else. Maybe we could just call it /clang: > > At the conference last week I discussed this with Reid Kleckner. One of the > options we discussed was trying to make things work such that -Xclang serves > both purposes. We quickly decided that this wouldn't work. /clang: would be > fine, but it might be more confusing since people will wonder what's the > difference between /Xclang and /clang:. We could use something more verbose > like /Xclang-driver:. I'd be happy to change the flag to whatever spelling > will build consensus. Let's go with "/clang:" for the flag. I don't think having both that and -Xclang would be too confusing. I think -Xclang is undocumented anyway and really something that should just be used by experts. We should add /clang: to the documentation and I think it will be straight-forward to understand. Repository: rC Clang https://reviews.llvm.org/D53457 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
