[PATCH] D83152: llvm-nm: add flag to suppress no symbols warning

[James Henderson via Phabricator via llvm-commits]

jhenderson added a comment.

In D83152#2555229 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D83152#2555229>, @kastiglione wrote:

> What, if any, is the community opinion on hidden flag use? Can this be a hidden flag and be done with it? I assume means hidden means no forward guarantees, rely on it at your own discretion.

My opinion: in this context, I don't think it buys us enough, but I'm not opposed to hidden flags in general. I don't know what the LLVM policy on hidden flags generally is though - more often than not, I've found hidden flags to be hidden accidentally!

>> I don't see how `--no-warning-for-no-symbols` is better than `--quiet`, but `--quiet` is an option name they could use for other purposes.
>
> seems like you answer your own question :)

Exactly: if `--quiet` has the risk of being used for something else, we should avoid using it (just the same as for short single-letter aliases). If on the other hand, someone wants to coordinate with GNU and/or they happen to implement `--quiet` to cover this case, we can remove the `--no-warning-for-no-symbols` option at that point, and direct users towards `--quiet` instead. I don't think it should be a requirement to do this coordination, especially given how easy it would be to migrate in this case.


Repository:
  rG LLVM Github Monorepo

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D83152/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D83152