jhuber6 added a comment. In D134550#3812369 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D134550#3812369>, @aaron.ballman wrote:
> This is a neat idea, but I think we should think about it carefully. In > general, `-Xclang` is not something we want to actively recommend users use, > so do we really want to make it easier for users to use? Thanks for the feedback, I mostly figured I'd throw out this patch since it took a few minutes to make and I've forgotten a few times which arguments need the `-Xclang` during Clang development. If you think that users shouldn't be exposed to that then it's probably best to hide it from them. > One potential problem that could be caused by this change is when we have a > driver option that the user typos but happens to match a -cc1 argument; I > could see inattentive users going "cool, I'll add -Xclang then" instead of > fixing the driver arg; but I've not looked through our existing options to > see if that situation is particularly *likely* or not. The logic outlined here should only fire if there is no close match. We only check if the input is a `cc1` option right before outputting the normal `unknown argument` warning without a suggestion. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D134550/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D134550 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
