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

Reply via email to