[llvm-dev] Making llvm-xyz -help useful
Chris Bieneman via llvm-dev
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
Tue May 14 15:06:42 PDT 2019
Chris,
I don't see this locally, so I don't think we are. However, if you specify -DLLVM_LINK_LLVM_DYLIB CMake links the tools against libLLVM instead of the component libraries, which would result in this behavior.
-Chris
> On May 12, 2019, at 9:14 AM, Chris Lattner via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>
> Unrelated to your actual question, but why are we linking targets into llvm-cat?
>
> -Chris
>
>> On May 9, 2019, at 9:23 AM, Serge Guelton via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>>
>> Hi folks,
>>
>> today, I wanted to concatenate two .ll, and naively typed:
>>
>> $ llvm-cat -help
>>
>> This is the not-so-helpful output I had:
>>
>> OVERVIEW: Module concatenation
>> USAGE: llvm-cat [options] <input files>
>>
>> OPTIONS:
>>
>> General options:
>>
>> -aarch64-neon-syntax - Choose style of NEON code to emit from AArch64 backend:
>> =generic - Emit generic NEON assembly
>> =apple - Emit Apple-style NEON assembly
>> -amdgpu-dump-hsa-metadata - Dump AMDGPU HSA Metadata
>> -amdgpu-enable-merge-m0 - Merge and hoist M0 initializations
>> -amdgpu-sdwa-peephole - Enable SDWA peepholer
>> [...]
>>
>> Surely, the style of NEON code to emit from AArch64 backend is not the information I was looking for...
>>
>> I've implemented a straight-forward patch for llvm-cat here https://reviews.llvm.org/D61740, and the result becomes:
>>
>> OVERVIEW: Module concatenation
>> USAGE: llvm-cat [options] <input files>
>>
>> OPTIONS:
>>
>> Generic Options:
>>
>> --help - Display available options (--help-hidden for more)
>> --help-list - Display list of available options (--help-list-hidden for more)
>> --version - Display the version of this program
>>
>> llvm-cat Options:
>>
>> -b - Whether to perform binary concatenation
>> -o=<filename> - Output filename
>>
>>
>> Depending on the tools, the filtering imposed by llvm::cl::HideUnrelatedOptions may be too harsh, but there's still -help-hidden for the curious!
>>
>> Any thoughts on that approach? Should I go on that way for other tools? If so, anyone willing to be auto-added as a reviewer?
>>
>> ++
>> Serge
>> _______________________________________________
>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
>> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
More information about the llvm-dev
mailing list