================
@@ -0,0 +1,43 @@
+// REQUIRES: lld
+
+/// Check DTLTO options are forwarded to the linker.
+
+// RUN: echo "--target=x86_64-linux-gnu \
+// RUN: -Xthinlto-distributor=distarg1 \
+// RUN: -Xthinlto-distributor=distarg2,distarg3 \
+// RUN: -fuse-ld=lld" > %t.rsp
+
+/// Check that options are forwarded as expected with --thinlto-distributor=.
+// RUN: %clang -### @%t.rsp -fthinlto-distributor=dist.exe %s 2>&1 | \
+// RUN: FileCheck %s --implicit-check-not=warning
+
+// CHECK: ld.lld
+// CHECK-SAME: "--thinlto-distributor=dist.exe"
+// CHECK-SAME: "--thinlto-remote-compiler={{.*}}clang
+// CHECK-SAME: "--thinlto-distributor-arg=distarg1"
+// CHECK-SAME: "--thinlto-distributor-arg=distarg2"
+// CHECK-SAME: "--thinlto-distributor-arg=distarg3"
+
+
+/// Check that options are not added without --thinlto-distributor= and
+/// that there is an unused option warning issued for -Xthinlto-distributor=
+/// options. We specify -flto here as these options should be unaffected by it.
+// RUN: %clang -### @%t.rsp -flto=thin %s 2>&1 | \
+// RUN: FileCheck %s --check-prefixes=NONE,NOMORE
--implicit-check-not=warning
----------------
bd1976bris wrote:
Yes that was the intent. I have now used a common response file for all
`FileCheck` invocations in this test and added a comment to explain the
intention behind the use of `implicit-check-not `arguments.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/147265
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
