[PATCH] Add support for a directory argument to llvm-link

Sean Silva silvas at purdue.edu
Mon Mar 17 16:26:53 PDT 2014

On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 3:42 PM, Rafael EspĂ­ndola <
rafael.espindola at gmail.com> wrote:

> >> $ echo test.o > list
> >> $ llvm-link -o foo.bc @list
> >>
> >> Can you use that instead?
> >
> >
> > I think this is a useful feature to have. Response files force all
> invokers
> > of llvm-link to know how to properly escape response files, which is an
> > inconvenience (that I personally ran into last Summer; do you remember
> the
> > hack that I had to use in order to feed all the files to llvm-link from
> the
> > LTO script? This option would have simplified things a fair amount).
> I remember, but as you said, it was a hack. I am not sure we want to
> have a feature to support that.

I meant that I had to use a hack to feed the files to llvm-link (crazy
escaping monstrosity), not that the use case is a hack.

> llvm-link is just a developer tool. Any use of it for production
> purposes is an unsupported hack. Which sometimes is the right thing to
> do, but still a hack and still unsupported.

This is a slippery slope. Developer tools exist because they make
developers' lives easier. Adding features which make developers' lives
easier is the right thing to do. We have concrete experience showing that
this sort of feature fits a real use case for the tool and significantly
simplifies its use; that's enough reason for me to consider it worthwhile
to have in-tree (especially since it's a very small amount of logic).

-- Sean Silva

> Cheers,
> Rafael
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-commits/attachments/20140317/19e70d01/attachment.html>

More information about the llvm-commits mailing list