rorth wrote: > > I wonder how to proceed with the patch at hand. > > I'm not a Solaris expert, but based on this discussion I'd consider adding > support for `-fuse-ld` in Flang. This sort of changes are often as simple as > updating Options.td. Same for `-r`.
Support of `-fuse-ld` is not Solaris-specific in any way. Other targets support e.g. `-fuse-ld=[bfd|lld]`. That would be just another case of Flang needing to support common flags. However, I don't understand how Flang option handling is done, unfortunately. Whatever the case, this is an issue separate from this patch: the only reason we were talking about `-r` and friends is that my patch guards adding the Flang runtime libs with `! -nostdlib && ! -nodefaultlibs && ! -r`, which I believe we have now established is correct. However, Flang accepts none of those options yet, which it should for compatiblity with both `clang++` and `gfortran`. However, I won't be able to deal with any of this: I've quite a number of other issues on my plate. > One important rule of thumb that I'd stick to: > > * Do whatever Clang, GFortran and GCC do. > > > In cases where there's different behavior between these compilers, just go > for whatever feels most sensible, but please document your design decision. Fully agreed: I've now checked that gfortran handles all of `-r`, `-nostdlib`, and `-nodefaultlibs`, so I believe `flang-new` should follow suite. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/65644 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
