hubert.reinterpretcast added a comment. In D69356#1726121 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D69356#1726121>, @lhames wrote:
> In D69356#1726074 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D69356#1726074>, @beanz wrote: > > > ... It seems to me that maybe a more appropriate approach is that > > `LLVM_SUPPORT_PLUGINS` implies `LLVM_NO_DEAD_STRIP`, rather than conflating > > the two options. > > > Yep — there are use-cases for no-dead-strip that aren’t plugins. I’m not sure > this rename helps. I think the .*PLUGINS.* options need more consideration, > and that LLVM_NO_DEAD_STRIP should be reinstated. Is there some documentation indicating these other use cases? The current instances are consistent with plug-in support. The "no dead strip" semantic is wrong and harmful for plug-in support on some platforms, so the suggestion to imply "no dead strip" when plug-in support is requested might not be advisable. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D69356/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D69356 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
