andreil99 accepted this revision.
andreil99 added a comment.
This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
Thanks, Vlad! Looks good.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D69651/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D69651
andreil99 accepted this revision.
andreil99 added a comment.
This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
Thanks for catching and fixing this, Sergej!
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D70499/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D70499
_
andreil99 accepted this revision.
andreil99 added a comment.
This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
Thanks, Vlad!
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D71625/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D71625
andreil99 requested changes to this revision.
andreil99 added a comment.
This revision now requires changes to proceed.
I'm fine with having this text in the ClangCommandLineReference.rst only, and
removing it from `clang -help`.
However, reverting the patch would not do, as ClangCommandLineRefe
andreil99 added a comment.
Post commit review is a normal practice in the LLVM community. This is not an
excuse to revert somebody's patch per se, unless there are other serious
reasons for the revert. The text does not describe “clang internals”, it
describes the semantic of that flag with re
andreil99 accepted this revision.
andreil99 added a comment.
This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
Thanks for suggesting `DocBrief`, Richard!
Looks good to me with a nit.
Comment at: clang/include/clang/Driver/Options.td:652
Flags<[CC1Option,CC1AsOption]>, Meta