[PATCH] Make the driver accept all four variants of the target option

Richard Smith richard at metafoo.co.uk
Thu Feb 19 17:33:24 PST 2015

By coincidence, I happened to run into the fact that we don't support
--target earlier today. We have a lot of truly weird baggage in our
command-line syntax, but I think we should be striving to minimize it. Is
there a justification for supporting one of "--foo bar" and "--foo=bar" but
not the other, for *any* of our options with arguments?

(I find it especially weird that our TableGen option mechanism has native
support for handling "-Ifoo" and "-I foo" as the same option, but not for
the more common case of "--blah foo" and "--blah=foo".)

On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 9:34 AM, Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com>

> Let's go with it. I don't see a reason not to. The only (somewhat silly)
> objection I was thinking was that --target <triple> feels like the
> configure option. But that's not necessarily a bad thing and I like it more
> than --target= anyhow :)
> -eric
>   rL LLVM
> http://reviews.llvm.org/D7730
>   http://reviews.llvm.org/settings/panel/emailpreferences/
> _______________________________________________
> cfe-commits mailing list
> cfe-commits at cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-commits/attachments/20150219/63b871b3/attachment.html>

More information about the cfe-commits mailing list