================ @@ -2958,6 +2958,8 @@ defm clangir : BoolFOption<"clangir", BothFlags<[], [ClangOption, CC1Option], "">>; def emit_cir : Flag<["-"], "emit-cir">, Visibility<[ClangOption, CC1Option]>, Group<Action_Group>, HelpText<"Build ASTs and then lower to ClangIR">; +def emit_cir_mlir : Flag<["-"], "emit-cir-mlir">, Visibility<[CC1Option]>, Group<Action_Group>, ---------------- andykaylor wrote:
> If we add `emit_mlir_EQ` will that peacefully coexist with the `def emit_mlir > : Flag<["-"], "emit-mlir">, Alias<emit_fir>;` definition until we can update > flang to align the behavior of the option with no argument? Answering my own question, yes, it will peacefully coexist. At least, the clang part of it worked. I can't see a reason that flang would be impacted (functionally) by what I did here, but I didn't build and test flang. I think it makes sense to put `emit_mlir_EQ` in here and then have a separate PR to have flang make use of this option, adding the additional flang dialects, and flang-specific help text. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/127835 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
