[PATCH] Add support for a directory argument to llvm-link

[Robinson, Paul]

> > I meant that I had to use a hack to feed the files to llvm-link (crazy
> > escaping monstrosity), not that the use case is a hack.
> 
> Well, it is a hack. That is not how we are implementing lto on trunk.
> 
> >> llvm-link is just a developer tool. Any use of it for production
> >> purposes is an unsupported hack. Which sometimes is the right thing
> to
> >> do, but still a hack and still unsupported.
> >
> >
> > This is a slippery slope. Developer tools exist because they make
> > developers' lives easier. Adding features which make developers' lives
> > easier is the right thing to do. We have concrete experience showing
> that
> > this sort of feature fits a real use case for the tool and
> significantly
> > simplifies its use; that's enough reason for me to consider it
> worthwhile to
> > have in-tree (especially since it's a very small amount of logic).
> 
> By developer tool I mean something that is use for testing llvm or in
> the day to day tasks of developing llvm. The use case you list is a
> way of implementing LTO which is not how we implement it in tree. I
> think any support code for it should be out of tree too.

LTO as implemented in-tree requires an out-of-tree linker to talk to
the plugin/dll.  This does not happen without development effort.

Being able to use llvm-link this way allowed developers to demonstrate
to other developers that LTO support was a useful thing to develop as
as a feature in an out-of-tree linker.  We never released it as a
supported LTO mechanism to our licensees.

--paulr

> 
> Cheers,
> Rafael
> _______________________________________________
> llvm-commits mailing list
> llvm-commits at cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvm-commits