[PATCH] D20423: [Clang][LLVMGold] Passing LLVM arguments to gold plugin

[Teresa Johnson via llvm-commits]

On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 4:01 PM, Duncan P. N. Exon Smith <
dexonsmith at apple.com> wrote:

> This seems strange to me.  For example, it breaks the otherwise very
> convenient:
> --
> $ clang -flto t.c -mllvm -some-internal-option-for-cc1
> --
>

What is an example mllvm option that is passed to cc1 that would be illegal
to pass via the gold-plugin - it isn't just ignored?


>
> I don't understand how it's better.
>

Another issue with the current situation is that in order to pass these to
llvm in LTO builds (at least for gold) you have to do
-Wl,-plugin-opt,-mllvm,-some-option, and gold gives a fatal error if it
sees a -plugin-opt without -plugin. So for example in a clang LTO bootstrap
I cannot set it up to pass any -mllvm option via plugin-opt because there
are link steps that create intermediate shared libraries but don't invoke
the plugin, so I get a fatal error (this affects all plugin-opt, but -mllvm
is probably a likely one that I would want to pass for debugging or
analysis).


> > On 2016-May-20, at 08:14, Mehdi AMINI via llvm-commits <
> llvm-commits at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> >
> > joker.eph added a comment.
> >
> > I'm don't have a strong opinion, let me ask what Duncan think of that.
> >
> >
> > http://reviews.llvm.org/D20423
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > llvm-commits mailing list
> > llvm-commits at lists.llvm.org
> > http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-commits
>
>


-- 
Teresa Johnson |  Software Engineer |  tejohnson at google.com |  408-460-2413
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-commits/attachments/20160531/573b03d4/attachment.html>