rnk added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D19996#422906, @rafael wrote:
> Is there a gcc option or they just assume they are targeting the > linker that was around when gcc was built? IIRC there's no GCC option. They base their decision on the configure-time check like you suggested. ================ Comment at: include/clang/Driver/Options.td:1696 + Flags<[CC1Option]>, + HelpText<"Copy Relocations support for PIE builds">; +def mno_pie_copy_relocations : Flag<["-"], "mno-pie-copy-relocations">, Group<m_Group>, ---------------- I agree with Rafael, this needs a verb, like "Use copy relocations in PIE builds" or something. ================ Comment at: include/clang/Driver/Options.td:1698 +def mno_pie_copy_relocations : Flag<["-"], "mno-pie-copy-relocations">, Group<m_Group>, + Flags<[CC1Option]>, + HelpText<"No Copy Relocations support for PIE builds">; ---------------- The "no" option variants don't need to be CC1 options. ================ Comment at: include/clang/Driver/Options.td:1699 + Flags<[CC1Option]>, + HelpText<"No Copy Relocations support for PIE builds">; def mx87 : Flag<["-"], "mx87">, Group<m_x86_Features_Group>; ---------------- I don't think we need help text for the "no" variant. I think we add help text to "no" flags when the flag is on by default, for example `-fno-exceptions`. https://reviews.llvm.org/D19996 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
