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

[Krzysztof Parzyszek]

On 4/1/2014 1:08 PM, Rafael Espíndola wrote:
>
> Sorry, what would the difference be from response files to the new
> option? Just using "llvm-link -list foo" instead of "llvm-link @foo"?

The difference would be that a response file works as if it was pasted 
into the command line (i.e. it can mix options and file names).  The 
option I suggested would specify a file that can only contain file names 
and so it wouldn't need to undergo special parsing or other 
considerations specific to response files.  I suggested that as an 
enhancement to the "directory" option, not as a replacement for response 
files.
If you feel that response files are sufficient, then this doesn't add 
anything.

-Krzysztof

-- 
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, 
hosted by The Linux Foundation