[PATCH] D60439: [llvm-objcopy] Accept --long-option but not -long-option

Mon Apr 22 19:38:46 PDT 2019

MaskRay added a comment.

In D60439#1470580 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D60439#1470580>, @jakehehrlich wrote:

> I feel like we didn't get a solid conclusion here but that the general consensus is that this change is more ideal. I think the argument that this is incompatible with merged short options and that that might have compatibility issues is a strong argument personally. The other not-quite-conclusion-but-leaning-that-way seems to be that we can't really make this same choice for all binaries. Do we feel like the conclusion of the llvm-dev post supports yet further fragmenting the tools? I don't know and I'm concerned about making that choice. We have to way tool consistency with GNU compatibility here and that's a hard choice. I'll add an email later to see if we can flesh this out more.

In the thread https://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2019-April/131786.html some people expressed that the single-dash `-long-option` seems unusual. Note, `cl::Grouping` is not used in utilities other than these binary utilities. Some people said the policy can be set per-command basis.

Can we fix llvm-objcopy now?

Repository:
  rL LLVM

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D60439/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D60439