compnerd added a comment.
Ah. Well, Im tempted to say that we should avoid the option. Generally,
making the backend options visible is undesirable since there is no guarantee
of stability there. This simplifies that, and if users start using that, we
would not be able to change those as eas
hintonda added a comment.
Mainly aesthetic. It was the only one of the group, -Xassembler, -Xlinker,
-Xpreprocessor, and -Xclang, that didn't have a corresponding comma separated
option, so I figured it might be a good addition.
http://reviews.llvm.org/D13229
__
compnerd added a comment.
While I can certainly appreciate the simplification this may afford, Im not
sure if adding a new option here is really that valuable. Options being added
to the frontend are expensive because they can't be changed or removed. If gcc
has a similar frontend option, we
hintonda added a comment.
Here are a few examples from existing tests showing how this option could be
used:
-Xclang -analyzer-max-loop -Xclang 34
becomes:
-Wc,-analyzer-max-loop,34
-Xclang -analyzer-checker=debug.ConfigDumper -Xclang -analyzer-max-loop
-Xclang 34
becomes:
-Wc,-a
Hi Joerg:
This change would allow users to pass multiple options, or options with
arguments, to cc1 without having to use -Xclang multiple times.
Recently, the -load option was added, at least partly, because passing
-Xclang multiple times was cumbersome. (I like that change btw)
Had -Wc, been a
On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 09:54:53PM +, don hinton via cfe-commits wrote:
> Add -Wc, option (similar to -Wl,) to go along with -Xclang.
> This makes it easier to pass multiple options to cc1.
How is this better than -mllvm and -Xclang? There is no precendence case for
this with GCC really and I
hintonda created this revision.
hintonda added a subscriber: cfe-commits.
Add -Wc, option (similar to -Wl,) to go along with -Xclang. This
makes it easier to pass multiple options to cc1.
http://reviews.llvm.org/D13229
Files:
include/clang/Driver/Options.td
lib/Driver/Tools.cpp
Index: lib
