r321099 - [driver][darwin] Take the OS version specified in "-target" as the target

[Alex L via cfe-commits]

I committed the patch that allows -m<os>-version-min to specify the OS
version when -target doesn't specify in r321559. Let me know if it works
for you!

Thanks,
Alex

On 21 December 2017 at 12:34, James Y Knight <jyknight at google.com> wrote:

> I totally agree with moving towards eliminating the -m<os>-version-min
> flags, it's much better to put it in the target, and will clean up a lot of
> cruft in the driver, eventually.
>
> Now -- we (or anyone else who runs into this) can simply start specifying
> the version in both locations ("-target x86_64-apple-ios10
> -mios-simulator-version-min=10"), so as to work with both new and old
> clang, and be closer to the ultimate goal of having only -target. That's an
> overall nicer workaround to suggest than switching to -darwin. But, yea,
> there's no need for *temporary* patch to fix things just for us.
>
> However, I do not understand why you're against committing the patch you
> mention as option #2 -- that seems like it'd be best for all users, by
> preserving compatibility with existing command-lines. So, I'd still like
> that change to be committed, permanently, not temporarily. I'm sure we
> can't be the only ones running clang like "-target x86_64-apple-ios
> -mios-simulator-version-min=10", and it seems unfortunate and unnecessary
> to break that, even if it can be worked around.
>
> In the future, I'd hope the -m<os>-version-min arguments can be deprecated
> more and more -- warning whenever you use them to modify the platform or
> version at all, rather just on specification conflict; then, warn anytime
> you use them at all; then, remove them. But in the meantime, it seems
> strictly better to preserve compatibility, don't you think?
>
>
>
> On Dec 21, 2017 2:11 PM, "Alex L" <arphaman at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Thanks for raising your concerns.
>
> We decided to avoid -m<os>-version-min flag in favor of -target to
> simplify the driver logic and to encourage the adoption of -target. Now
> after r321145 we only warn about -m<os>-version-min flag when the OS
> version specified in it is different to the OS version specified in target,
> or when target has no OS version.
>
> There are two possible solutions here:
> 1) You can still use -target with -mios-simulator-version-min as before
> but you'd have to use '-target=x86_64-apple-darwin' to ensure that the iOS
> version specified by  '-mios-simulator-version-min' is used.
> 2) I also do have a patch that implements the logic that you propose (use
> the OS version in -m<os>-version-min flag if target has none). If you
> believe that the first solution is not suitable for your code then I can
> commit it. At the same time I believe that we would rather not use this
> patch, but if it's urgent for your projects then maybe I can land it now
> and then we can establish some sort of timeline for when it can be reverted?
>
> Thanks,
> Alex
>
>
> On 21 December 2017 at 08:00, James Y Knight <jyknight at google.com> wrote:
>
>> I think if a version number isn't explicitly specified in the -target
>> value, the value from -m<platform>-version-min ought to still be used, as
>> it was before.
>>
>> Currently, clang will ignore the -m<platform>-version-min version number
>> if the target has a particular OS specified, even if it has no version
>> number as part of it.
>>
>> (We should be able to workaround this change backwards-compatibly by
>> specifying in both the -target argument and in the -m<platform>-version-min
>> arguments, but I do think the behavior should be fixed.)
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-commits/attachments/20171229/9aab7fc4/attachment-0001.html>