hans added a comment. I haven't started looking at the code yet.
I'm not completely convinced that we want this. So far we've used the strategy of promoting clang options that are also useful in clang-cl to core options, and if someone wants to use more clang than that, maybe clang-cl isn't the right driver for that use-case. But I suppose an argument could be made for having an escape hatch from clang-cl if it doesn't add too much complexity to the code. I'm not sure I'm a fan of calling it /Xdriver: though, because what does it mean - clang-cl is the driver, but the option refers to the clang driver. The natural name would of course be -Xclang but that already means something else. Maybe we could just call it /clang: Repository: rC Clang https://reviews.llvm.org/D53457 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
