scott.linder added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D54489#1297504, @troyj wrote:
> I realize that you're probably striving for option compatibility with gcc, > but continuing to name it -frecord-gcc-switches when it actually records > Clang switches seems weird to me. It almost sounds like something that would > dump gcc equivalents of all Clang options, or maybe let you know which Clang > options you've used that match gcc options. Either way, by the name -- if > you aren't familiar with the gcc option -- it doesn't read like it records > Clang options. > > Would it be that bad to name it -frecord-clang-switches? Or just > -frecord-switches? I agree, and this was my original plan, but then I noticed that Clang already implements -grecord-gcc-switches and so I decided to mirror the naming for the -f variant as well. If anything I think dropping the -gcc- altogether would make the most sense. I don't understand why GCC includes it in the first place. Repository: rC Clang https://reviews.llvm.org/D54489 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
