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

[Reid Kleckner]

On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 11:15 AM, Krzysztof Parzyszek <
kparzysz at codeaurora.org> wrote:

> 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.


IMO response files are sufficient for this.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-commits/attachments/20140401/572122ee/attachment.html>