[lld] r302227 - [ELF] - Accept --defsym foo=value form.

[George Rimar via llvm-commits]

?> ?Please follow the convention -- if you have two options, -foo= and -foo, one is named as foo_eq in this file.


I afraid we are not consistent and probably don't have any convention here

When I did that patch I checked naming carefully I think my naming is OK.


See (just a quick look):

1) def entry: S<"entry">, MetaVarName<"<entry>">,
  HelpText<"Name of entry point symbol">;
def alias_entry_entry: J<"entry=">, Alias<entry>;


def fini: S<"fini">, MetaVarName<"<symbol>">,
  HelpText<"Specify a finalizer function">;
def alias_fini_fini: J<"fini=">, Alias<fini>;

2) def error_limit: S<"error-limit">,
  HelpText<"Maximum number of errors to emit before stopping (0 = no limit)">;
def alias_error_limit: J<"error-limit=">, Alias<error_limit>;

def Tbss: S<"Tbss">, HelpText<"Same as --section-start with .bss as the sectionname">;
def alias_Tbss: J<"Tbss=">, Alias<Tbss>;

def Tdata: S<"Tdata">, HelpText<"Same as --section-start with .data as the sectionname">;
def alias_Tdata: J<"Tdata=">, Alias<Tdata>;


3) def build_id: F<"build-id">, HelpText<"Generate build ID note">;
def build_id_eq: J<"build-id=">, HelpText<"Generate build ID note">;

It seems we at least have 3 types of naming in that case, my patch used one of them.

I can check all options and prepare a patch to fix all options at once to be consistent.


> Please send me a patch review. Thanks.?

I will.

George.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-commits/attachments/20170508/4c6842f4/attachment.html>