[PATCH] D21465: [llc+llvm-mc] Replace the hidden -target-abi option with a -mabi thats visible in --help.

[Rafael Espíndola via llvm-commits]

OK, this is fine by me if we reach an agreement on the desire to add a
few llvm-only triples.

Cheers,
Rafael


On 21 June 2016 at 11:25, Daniel Sanders <Daniel.Sanders at imgtec.com> wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Rafael Espíndola [mailto:rafael.espindola at gmail.com]
>> Sent: 21 June 2016 16:11
>> To: Daniel Sanders
>> Cc: reviews+D21465+public+92eb7897bc2cfded at reviews.llvm.org; llvm-
>> commits; filcab+llvm.phabricator at gmail.com
>> Subject: Re: [PATCH] D21465: [llc+llvm-mc] Replace the hidden -target-abi
>> option with a -mabi thats visible in --help.
>>
>> >> OK, we should change that if the entire information is to be available
>> >> in the triple.
>> >
>> > I'm not opposed to specifying the whole triple with -mtriple since it avoids
>> the strange triples I mentioned on OSX and Windows hosts. However I
>> should mention that doing so will cost us some test coverage unless we take
>> measures to prevent it. For example, running 'ninja check-all' on a FreeBSD
>> and Linux host currently covers both FreeBSD and Linux compilation
>> whenever we don't specify the OS in the command line options. If we
>> specified the full triple on all tests then we'd lose one of those (it would
>> cross-compile instead) unless we add extra RUN directives to maintain it.
>>
>> I think it is worth it.
>>
>> >
>> >> So, moving the option out of MCTargetOptionsCommandFlags.h and into
>> >> llvm-mc.cpp is a good thing, but why do you need to rename it?
>> >>
>> >> Cheers,
>> >> Rafael
>> >
>> > I renamed it for consistency with the other target options in llc/llvm-mc
>> such as -mcpu, and -mattr (also -march, -mtriple in llc, llvm-mc skips the
>> leading 'm' for these two). The corresponding clang patch doesn't rename it
>> since end-users aren't expected to call 'clang -cc1' and 'clang -cc1as' directly.
>>
>> End users are not supposed to call llvm-mc :-)
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Rafael
>
> I meant for those two sentences to be distinct but reading it back I did a bad job of it :-).
>
> I was trying to say that llc's/llvm-mc's consistency with the other options in llc/llvm-mc/clang is intended to benefit us humans, while not renaming it for 'clang -cc1' and 'clang -cc1as' is because the clang driver is normally generating those commands.