uweigand added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D30415#704761, @echristo wrote:
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D30415#703652, @uweigand wrote: > > > I'm a bit confused by this discussion. -faltivec and -maltivec are simply > > aliases, they do exactly the same thing; the clang-internal variable > > OPT_faltivec indicates the use of either -faltivec or -maltivec. > > > They didn't used to, I arranged it so that they did (technically breaking gcc > compatibility) a while ago. Well, mainline GCC doesn't have -faltivec at all and never had, I think this was only an Apple GCC extension ... Not sure what exactly the semantics of that was. >> Or is the suggestion to simply remove the alias -faltivec, and leave >> -maltivec as-is? I'd be less opposed to this since it probably breaks fewer >> users ... but I'm still not quite sure what it actually buys us. And in >> any case the patch currently under discussion here would still be necessary >> then, to fix -maltivec -mno-altivec ... > > No, remove faltivec and move forward with -maltivec/-mno-altivec but you > should be able to remove a lot of the special handling at that point. I'm still confused as to what exactly you're refering to here. As far as I can see, every single thing triggered by -faltivec / -maltivec in the compiler frontend would still be needed exactly the same if we only supported the -maltivec option name. So the only thing we'd save is literally the two lines in include/clang/Driver/Options.td that set up the alias. Do you have an example of the "special handling" to remove you're thinking of? https://reviews.llvm.org/D30415 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
