[PATCH] D77231: [lld] Support -emit-asm with LTO

[Hongtao Yu via Phabricator via llvm-commits]

hoyFB marked 3 inline comments as done.
hoyFB added inline comments.


================
Comment at: lld/ELF/Driver.cpp:890
   config->emitLLVM = args.hasArg(OPT_plugin_opt_emit_llvm, false);
+  config->emitAsm = args.hasArg(OPT_lto_emit_asm, false);
   config->emitRelocs = args.hasArg(OPT_emit_relocs);
----------------
grimar wrote:
> It looks inconsistent with another `OPT_lto*` options we have:
> 
> ```
>   config->ltoAAPipeline = args.getLastArgValue(OPT_lto_aa_pipeline);
>   config->ltoCSProfileGenerate = args.hasArg(OPT_lto_cs_profile_generate);
>   config->ltoCSProfileFile = args.getLastArgValue(OPT_lto_cs_profile_file);
> ...
> ```
> 
> Should it be called `config->ltoEmitAsm` to be consistent?
> 
> Or, instead, it could be `args.hasArg(OPT_plugin_opt_emit_asm, false)`, what also would make sense it seems.
> 
> What do other reviewers think?
Naming it ```config->ltoEmitAsm``` sounds good to me. If you look at the relationship between ```OPT_lto*``` and ```OPT_plugin_opt_*``` in lld, the later is always an alias of the former.


================
Comment at: lld/ELF/Driver.cpp:1937
+  if (config->emitAsm)
+    return;
+
----------------
grimar wrote:
> grimar wrote:
> > That the last 2 comments have a large common part. Also it seems that if `thinLTOIndexOnly`, `emitLLVM` and `emitAsm` were added at once and not separatelly, we would not split them. I think it might be better to rewrite these 3 comments into a single one and do:
> > 
> > ```
> > // <A shorter and nicer comment here>
> > if (config->thinLTOIndexOnly || config->emitLLVM || config->emitAsm)
> >   return;
> > ```
> "That the last 2..." -> "Last 2..."
Sounds good.


Repository:
  rG LLVM Github Monorepo

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D77231/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D77231