jmolloy abandoned this revision.
jmolloy added a comment.
Abandoning - this isn't as clear-cut as I thought.
Repository:
rL LLVM
http://reviews.llvm.org/D16056
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/
Ok, I'll abandon this.
It wasn't meant to be contentious and this is a reasonable objection!
James
> On 12 Jan 2016, at 00:53, Mehdi Amini wrote:
>
> I’d fear the same thing. On our platform you have to use explicitly
> -Wl,-mllvm (or -Xlinker -plugin-opt).
>
> —
> Mehdi
>
>
>> On Jan 11, 2
I’d fear the same thing. On our platform you have to use explicitly -Wl,-mllvm
(or -Xlinker -plugin-opt).
—
Mehdi
> On Jan 11, 2016, at 4:11 PM, Rafael Espíndola
> wrote:
>
> Maybe. I would like a second opinion on this one. The potential issue
> I see is that we are using compiler options
Maybe. I would like a second opinion on this one. The potential issue
I see is that we are using compiler options during linking. Normally
they are just ignored. Is it surprising if LTO starts using them?
Cheers,
Rafael
On 11 January 2016 at 06:47, James Molloy wrote:
> jmolloy created this rev
jmolloy created this revision.
jmolloy added a reviewer: rafael.
jmolloy added a subscriber: cfe-commits.
jmolloy set the repository for this revision to rL LLVM.
Herald added a subscriber: joker.eph.
The gold plugin can take LLVM options, but the syntax is confusing:
-Wl,-plugin-opt= or -Xlinker
