On Sun, Oct 16, 2016 at 6:43 PM, Sean Silva <chisophu...@gmail.com> wrote: > Nice to see this land! > > One nit: > Currently, doesn't LLD/ELF ignore -plugin-opt? That will mean that if a user > uses the "gold syntax" then LLD will silently ignore it, which isn't good. > At the very least, can we issue an error if we see `-plugin-opt jobs=N` and > suggest the LLD spelling? > > Or maybe just accept the gold syntax? Our current handling of `-plugin` and > `-plugin-opt` is intended to make LLD transparently Do The Right Thing when > LLD is invoked as if it were gold, so clearly gold compatibility is > important enough for that. This suggests it is important enough to be > compatible from a ThinLTO perspective too. >
I agree with what you're suggesting. My initial vote would be for error'ing out on anything we can't understand that's passed via `-plugin-opt` and see what breaks (and add incremental support for every feature needed). Teresa, Rafael, any opinions about it? -- Davide "There are no solved problems; there are only problems that are more or less solved" -- Henri Poincare _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits