[PATCH] D11737: Add -linker (and -linker=) alias for -fuse-ld=

[Richard Smith via cfe-commits]

On Aug 25, 2015 10:26 AM, "Filipe Cabecinhas" <
filcab+llvm.phabricator at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Richard,
>
> We wouldn't be able to link with libs matching
"libinker=*.{dylib,so,...}", I guess. If that is a big problem and you'd
prefer that we keep this as a private patch, let me know.

I don't think it's a big problem, more just a "try to pick better flag
names in future" comment :) It sounds like you guys have existing systems
that depend on this name, so while I'm not really overjoyed about this,
accepting it for compatibility seems OK.

Can we produce an accompanying "deprecated" warning suggesting use of the
other name?

> Thank you,
>
>   Filipe
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 6:45 PM, Richard Smith <richard at metafoo.co.uk>
wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 5:50 PM, Eric Christopher via cfe-commits <
cfe-commits at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> echristo added inline comments.
>>>
>>> ================
>>> Comment at: include/clang/Driver/Options.td:1853
>>> @@ -1853,1 +1852,3 @@
>>> +def fuse_ld_EQ : Joined<["-"], "fuse-ld=">, HelpText<"Use linker
<name>">, Group<f_Group>;
>>> +def linker_EQ : Joined<["-"], "linker=">, Alias<fuse_ld_EQ>,
MetaVarName<"<name>">;
>>>
>>> ----------------
>>> thakis wrote:
>>> > Any reason to have another alias for this at all? Does gcc understand
this spelling? If not, could you limit this flag to PS4 targets? (I'm
guessing you need it for PS4 targets for some reason.)
>>> Any reason? (And I'm not sure how to limit it btw on target).
>>
>>
>> -l already has a meaning; adding a different flag starting with -l is a
bad idea.
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-commits/attachments/20150825/5a3e4f5f/attachment.html>