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

[Rafael Espíndola]

> For feeding a large number of bitcode files to llvm-link (especially without
> worrying about command-line length and/or response file escaping).

When do you do that as part of regular development?

>> > Besides, making the tool easier to use is not a concession that it
>> > should be
>> > used for production purposes or is supported for production purposes;
>> > it's
>> > just that: making the tool easier to use. Think about it this way: if
>> > llvm-link were originally written with this behavior, would you be dying
>> > to
>> > rip that functionality out?
>>
>> Would not be the top of my priorities. But it is not in trunk, so the
>> burden is on the other side to show that this is a useful thing to
>> have in a development environment.
>
>
> Agreed. I think the experience last Summer fulfills that burden of proof and
> demonstrates that this feature would be handy to have.
>

No, it doesn't. Quiet the opposite. Having a feature that makes it
easier to use llvm-mc in production is undesirable.

Cheers,
Rafael