probinson added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D28404#640314, @mehdi_amini wrote:
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D28404#640284, @probinson wrote: > > > In https://reviews.llvm.org/D28404#640178, @mehdi_amini wrote: > > > > > In https://reviews.llvm.org/D28404#640170, @probinson wrote: > > > > > > > In my experience, modifying source is by far simpler than hacking a > > > > build system to make a special case for compiler options for one module > > > > in an application. (If you have a way to build Clang with everything > > > > done LTO except one module built with -O0, on Linux with ninja, I would > > > > be very curious to hear how you do that.) > > > > > > > > > Static library, separated projects, etc. > > > We have tons of users... > > > > > > Still waiting. > > > Waiting for what? > We have use-cases, I gave you a few (vendor static libraries are one). > Again, if you think it is wrong to support O0 and LTO, then please elaborate. Your original use-case described debugging a module in an application. You claimed it was simpler to change the build options for a module than change the source, which I am still waiting to hear how/why that is simpler. Your subsequent use cases are about entire sub-projects, which is entirely different and orthogonal to where you started. Please elaborate on the original use case. https://reviews.llvm.org/D28404 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
