[PATCH] D40725: Wasm entrypoint changes #3 (add --no-entry argument to LLD) APPLY AFTER D40559

[Nicholas Wilson via Phabricator via llvm-commits]

ncw added inline comments.


================
Comment at: test/wasm/data-layout.ll:3
 ; RUN: llc -filetype=obj %s -o %t.o
-; RUN: lld -flavor wasm --emit-relocs --allow-undefined --entry '' -o %t.wasm %t.o %t.hello.o
+; RUN: lld -flavor wasm --emit-relocs --allow-undefined --no-entry -o %t.wasm %t.o %t.hello.o
 ; RUN: obj2yaml %t.wasm | FileCheck %s
----------------
sbc100 wrote:
> Looks like this is not based off of master.  Can you rebase?
It's based off D40559. I've got a pipeline of patches here!

In the title of the patches, I've tried to make it clear what order I'm expecting them to be merged in. That's solely to save work for whoever ends up committing them on my behalf, so they don't have to handle the merge conflicts.

Of course if D40559 is rejected, I can rebase this one, but I basically don't want to put extra admin on some else to manage my patches. Hope that's helpful!


================
Comment at: wasm/Driver.cpp:291
 
-  if (Config->Relocatable && !Config->Entry.empty())
+  if (Config->Relocatable && Config->Entry.data())
     error("entry point specified for relocatable output file");
----------------
sbc100 wrote:
> I don't think you need to change this.  Treating empty as not present seems fine to me.
I agree it wasn't an urgent change, but now it's done (at Dan's suggestion/request) I don't think it's doing any harm.


Repository:
  rLLD LLVM Linker

https://reviews.llvm.org/D40725