michaelmaitland added a comment. In D144914#4159291 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D144914#4159291>, @MaskRay wrote:
> Sorry I just saw this but I am not sure this is a good idea. Why can't the > user use `--print-supported-cpus` instead? The additional alias doesn't seem > useful. If you can make GCC add this as well, it will be different. According to https://reviews.llvm.org/D63105, I believe the reason `mcpu=?` and `mtune=?` were added was: > This option is useful but may be hard to discover. Will something like > -march=? and -mtune=? make the feature more discoverable? I would then say this option is being made available for the same reason: discoverability. Since `llc` uses `help` instead of `?`, I think that this clang option is easier to discover since it exists in other parts of llvm. Additionally, it comes with the added benefit that `help` does not contain special characters that require escaping. Maybe we revert this patch and remove the `?` and only support `help`? Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D144914/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D144914 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
