[PATCH] D83002: [llvm-libtool-darwin] Add support for -static option

[Sameer Arora via Phabricator via llvm-commits]

sameerarora101 marked an inline comment as done.
sameerarora101 added inline comments.


================
Comment at: llvm/test/tools/llvm-libtool-darwin/create-static-lib.test:51
+## The warning is not yet implemented for llvm-libtool-darwin.
+# RUN: llvm-libtool-darwin -static -o %t.lib %t-input1.o %t-input2.o %t-input1.o
+# RUN: llvm-ar t %t.lib | \
----------------
jhenderson wrote:
> sameerarora101 wrote:
> > jhenderson wrote:
> > > It might be worth adding a `2&>1` and check the output is empty here, to flag up if a warning starts getting emitted. That way, it points to where to add testing for the warning.
> > ok, added
> > ```
> > # RUN: llvm-libtool-darwin -static -o %t.lib %t-input1.o %t-input2.o %t-input1.o 2>&1 | \
> > # RUN:   FileCheck %s --allow-empty --implicit-check-not={{.}}
> > ```
> > I hope `--alow-empty` is the right way to go about empty input files (found it here http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of-Mon-20140804/229905.html). The flag is not there in the documentation
> Sounds like a documentation bug. Feel free to update the doc if you get a minute. By default, FileCheck emits an error if the input is empty, but this can be overridden with the use of `--allow-empty`. That in turn has got me wondering whether `--allow-empty` should be replaced by a new option that also implies `--implicit-check-not`. I've raised that on llvm-dev.
ok, I'll create a diff for the doc, thanks!


Repository:
  rG LLVM Github Monorepo

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D83002/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D83002