[PATCH] D108881: [clang][driver] Honor the last -flto(=.*)? argument

Tue Sep 7 14:54:03 PDT 2021

tejohnson added a comment.

In D108881#2988016 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D108881#2988016>, @steven_wu wrote:

> In D108881#2987990 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D108881#2987990>, @mnadeem wrote:
>
>> In D108881#2973735 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D108881#2973735>, @steven_wu wrote:
>>
>>> In D108881#2973719 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D108881#2973719>, @mnadeem wrote:
>>>
>>>> In D108881#2973516 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D108881#2973516>, @steven_wu wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I will do a cleanup of `parseLTOMode` function since we don't need a `OptPos` parameter anymore. There are few minor places references `OPT_flto` or `OPT_foffload_lto` can be cleaned up too.
>>>>
>>>> Will you incorporate the functional changes in this patch? Or is there still a need for this change?
>>>
>>> The current change set in this review is functional change while the cleanup I want is not functional after the rewrite the old option as Alias. Once flto is the alias, there is no need to handle that in the driver and those might actually become source of bug in the future.
>>>
>>> I think it would be good to do the cleanup in the same commit unless you have compelling reason not to.
>>
>> Hi @steven_wu any idea about the timeline?
>>
>> This issue is blocking some internal work, and assuming that it will take longer to get a full fix, I would prefer it if this change could go in on its own.
>> Otherwise I am good with doing everything in the same commit.
>
> I expect the cleanup is very very simple and that is why I am suggested to do in the same commit. I am ok with a followup fix as well.

I think there might be some high level confusion. @steven_wu earlier in the thread you said "I will do a cleanup", but I think you were asking @mnadeem to do the cleanup here in this patch.

Repository:
  rG LLVM Github Monorepo

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D108881/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D108881