[PATCH] D102535: [RISCV] -mno-relax: emit .option norelax

[Kito Cheng via Phabricator via llvm-commits]

kito-cheng added a comment.

> I think an assembler only option should be spelled as `-Wa,*`. The driver option isn't useful and should just be avoided.
>
> For `-mno-relax`, I think there can be arguments that the assembler generation may be affected (to appease assembler, for example) so a driver option is needed.
>
> If the driver option `-mno-relax` is still preferred over `-Wa,-mno-relax`, I can abandon this and submit another one passing `-mno-relax` to GNU as for `-fno-integrated-as`.

Jim W and me don't have strong opinion here, but we don't want to break backward compatible/behavior change on GNU toolchain, so we using both for now.

The reason why we did't pass `-mno-relax` to assembler...is because we already using `.option norelax` scheme there, so we thought it's enough (long times ago I don't even remember when).

For clang/LLVM, I think there is freedom to choose implement both or just pass `-mno-relax`.


Repository:
  rG LLVM Github Monorepo

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D102535/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D102535