r231787 - Allow -target= and --target options

[Richard Barton]

Hi Chandler

 

Gabor’s patch seems uncontroversial to me and the new behaviour matches many other applications using unix getopt.

 

Could you say why you think it is a mistake?

 

Do you object to relaxing the mandatory ‘=’ or allowing both single and double – versions or both?

 

Rich

 

 

From: cfe-commits-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:cfe-commits-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] On Behalf Of Chandler Carruth
Sent: 11 March 2015 20:16
To: Renato Golin
Cc: llvm cfe
Subject: Re: r231787 - Allow -target= and --target options

 

 

On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 6:58 AM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org> wrote:

Allow -target= and --target options

Using clang as a cross-compiler with the 'target' option could be confusing
for those inexperienced in the realm of cross compiling.

This patch would allow the use of all these four variants of the target option:
-target <triple>
--target <triple>
-target=<triple>
--target=<triple>


Previously we insisted on using --target= because we wanted that to be the consistent driver syntax for this option. I would prefer to continue to insist on that.

 

I think offering choices here is a very serious mistake. This is our driver's flag, and we should have some freedom to specify its syntax.

 

Could we go back to requiring explicitly '--target='?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-commits/attachments/20150311/185fc11f/attachment.html>