scott.linder added a comment. In D149193#4316293 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D149193#4316293>, @dblaikie wrote:
> I guess my main question is: What's the motivation for implementing this? Do > you have a need/use for this? (it doesn't seem to be motivated by GCC > compatibility - as discussed, looks like we're diverging in a bunch of ways > from their behavior and the argument made that these are "developer" flags, > so not a stable/compatible interface used across both compilers) Even if we only align the default behavior of Clang with the default behavior of GCC it seems like a win. AFAIU we could implement this without `-dumpdir` at all, but the baseline notion of being able to specify where to put auxiliary/dump files seems useful. Do we need to match every quirk and add every other knob from GCC in order to use the same name? Is there precedent in terms of other options where Clang is close but opinionated about behavior relative to GCC? Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D149193/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D149193 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
