[flang-dev] RFC: `fsyntax-only` as an alias for `fparse-only` in `f18`

[Andrzej Warzynski via flang-dev]

Thank you both! There was an additional suggestion on Slack to remove 
`-fparse-only` entirely, but I prefer to do it in 2 steps. If this is 
fine with you, could you please review and approve?

Btw, I've updated the patch to make it clear that `-fparse-only` is 
deprecated. Users will also see this warning:

```
warning: `-fparse-only` is deprecated and will be removed in the future, 
use `-fsyntax-only` instead
```

-Andrzej

On 01/02/2021 16:17, Richard Barton wrote:
> +1 from me also. Seems like an obvious good thing to ease the transition from old driver to new and the new spelling was already agreed in your previous RFC.
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: flang-dev <flang-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org> On Behalf Of Johannes
>> Doerfert via flang-dev
>> Sent: 1 February, 2021 16:04
>> To: Andrzej Warzynski <Andrzej.Warzynski at arm.com>
>> Cc: flang-dev at lists.llvm.org
>> Subject: Re: [flang-dev] RFC: `fsyntax-only` as an alias for `fparse-only` in `f18`
>>
>> +1 for -fsyntax-only, consistency with Clang is worth it.
>>
>> An alias for a while seems reasonable, eventually we phase alternatives out.
>>
>> ~ Johannes
>>
>>
>> On 2/1/21 9:17 AM, Andrzej Warzynski via flang-dev wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> Recently we've ported the preprocessor tests to use the new Flang
>>> driver[1]. Soon we will be ready to port OpenMP and OpenACC tests. As
>>> the new driver and `f18` use slightly different spellings for options
>>> [2], we will require some workarounds. In this RFC I'd like to ask you
>>> for your opinion on using `-fparse-only` and `-fsyntax-only`.
>>>
>>> In [3] we introduce `-fsyntax-only` as an alias for `-fparse-only` in
>>> `f18`. This is sufficient for us to start porting more tests to the
>>> new Flang driver very soon. Also, in [3] we port all tests to use
>>> `-fsyntax-only` instead of `-fparse-only`. Otherwise, `-fparse-only`
>>> remains supported by `f18` and you can continue to use it.
>>>
>>> Does the approach from [3] work for you or would you prefer a
>>> different solution? I'm happy to propose some alternatives if there's
>>> interest.
>>>
>>> Thank you for reading!
>>>
>>> -Andrzej
>>>
>>>
>>> [1] https://reviews.llvm.org/D94805
>>> [2] https://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/flang-dev/2020-November/000588.html
>>> [3] https://reviews.llvm.org/D95784
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> flang-dev mailing list
>>> flang-dev at lists.llvm.org
>>> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/flang-dev
>> _______________________________________________
>> flang-dev mailing list
>> flang-dev at lists.llvm.org
>> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/flang-dev