[llvm-dev] Accept --long-option but not -long-option for llvm binary utilities

[Fāng-ruì Sòng via llvm-dev]

> Are you proposing to make this the new style across all LLVM utilities?

No. Only drop --long-option for GNU binutils replacements (people sometimes
call them LLVM binary utilities): llvm-objcopy (D60439), llvm-ar,
llvm-size, llvm-nm, etc. llvm-objdump (not sure what to do with mach-o
specific dump options), llvm-readelf (not sure what to do with llvm-readobj)

On Sat, Apr 20, 2019 at 2:13 AM Reid Kleckner <rnk at google.com> wrote:

> Are you proposing to make this the new style across all LLVM utilities?
> That seems needlessly disruptive. There are plenty of scripts that call
> `opt` and `llc` directly with single dash long options, regardless of how
> much we claim that they are not public facing, and are only developer tools.
>
> If you want to add a flag to ParseCommandLineOptions so that individual
> LLVM tools can opt into the new behavior gradually, I think that would be
> reasonable.
>
> On Mon, Apr 15, 2019 at 11:41 PM Fāng-ruì Sòng via llvm-dev <
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>
>> Many llvm utilities use cl::ParseCommandLineOptions()
>> (include/Support/CommandLine.h) to parse command line options. The cl
>> library accepts both -long-option and --long-option forms, with the single
>> dash form (-long-option) being more popular.
>>
>> We also have many binary utilities (llvm-objcopy llvm-objdump
>> llvm-readobj llvm-size ...) whose names reflect what they imitate. For
>> compatibility with GNU binutils (and some Unix utilities transitively),
>> these utilities accept many short options. People who use llvm utilities as
>> replacement of GNU binutils may use the grouped option syntax (POSIX
>> Utility Conventions), e.g. -Sx => -S -x, -Wd => -W -d, -sj.text => -s
>> -j.text
>>
>> The problem is, grouped short options don't play well with -long-option.
>> Sometimes there can be ambiguity. The issue is more prominent if the short
>> option accepts an argument.
>>
>> An approach to prevent the ambiguity is to just disallow -long-option.
>> In D60439, I plan to make llvm-objcopy accept --long-option but not
>> -long-option.
>> It will make its command line option parsing behave more like GNU objcopy
>> and less like a regular llvm utility. What do people think of the
>> divergence?
>>
>> Further, can we make similar changes to other llvm binary utilities
>> (their names give people the expectation), especially those with many short
>> options such as llvm-objdump and llvm-readobj? llvm-readobj behaves like
>> GNU readelf if you name it "llvm-readelf". (I don't suggest disallowing
>> -long-option for utilities other than binutils)
>>
>> (Note, llvm-objcopy is a new member of the family and it uses tablegen
>> based include/llvm/Option/Opton.h, instead of cl:: as other utilities do.)
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> 宋方睿
>> _______________________________________________
>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
>> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>>
>

-- 
宋方睿
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20190420/6d93810f/attachment.html>