llvm dev - Oct 2012 - [LLVMdev] [llvm-commits] patch to enable response file support in ParseCommandLineOptions

Thanks Chris for the comment.

Since there is no objection, I attached a new patch which enables response file
support and removes the argument for controlling/disabling response file
support. The patch also contains a simple test. I did regression check and there
are no regressions.

+ llvmdev

Sam

From: Chris Lattner [mailto:clattner at apple.com]
Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2012 2:20 PM
To: Liu, Yaxun (Sam)
Cc: llvm-commits at cs.uiuc.edu
Subject: Re: [llvm-commits] patch to enable response file support in
ParseCommandLineOptions


On Sep 21, 2012, at 2:07 PM, "Liu, Yaxun (Sam)" <Yaxun.Liu at
amd.com<mailto:Yaxun.Liu at amd.com>> wrote:


Hi,

I am sending a patch to enable response file support in ParseCommandLineOptions.
With this change, all llvm tools will support response file. This helps overcome
the command line length limit which we encountered recently.


This seems fine to me.  Is there any reason we *wouldn't* want a tool to
read response files?  If all tools should handle it, the argument should just go
away.

-Chris

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20121002/ef8646f8/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ResponseFile.patch
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 4600 bytes
Desc: ResponseFile.patch
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20121002/ef8646f8/attachment.obj>

Can we call this a "parameters file"? I find "response file"
to be non-obvious.

On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 8:18 AM, Liu, Yaxun (Sam) <Yaxun.Liu at amd.com>
wrote:
> Thanks Chris for the comment.
>
>
>
> Since there is no objection, I attached a new patch which enables response
> file support and removes the argument for controlling/disabling response
> file support. The patch also contains a simple test. I did regression check
> and there are no regressions.
>
>
>
> + llvmdev
>
>
>
> Sam
>
>
>
> From: Chris Lattner [mailto:clattner at apple.com]
> Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2012 2:20 PM
> To: Liu, Yaxun (Sam)
> Cc: llvm-commits at cs.uiuc.edu
> Subject: Re: [llvm-commits] patch to enable response file support in
> ParseCommandLineOptions
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sep 21, 2012, at 2:07 PM, "Liu, Yaxun (Sam)" <Yaxun.Liu at
amd.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> Hi,
>
>
>
> I am sending a patch to enable response file support in
> ParseCommandLineOptions. With this change, all llvm tools will support
> response file. This helps overcome the command line length limit which we
> encountered recently.
>
>
>
>
>
> This seems fine to me.  Is there any reason we *wouldn't* want a tool
to
> read response files?  If all tools should handle it, the argument should
> just go away.
>
>
>
> -Chris
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> llvm-commits mailing list
> llvm-commits at cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvm-commits
>

Response file is the conventional name for files serving this purpose. A google
search shows the usage of "response file" is not rare. Also it has
been used in the LLVM documentation:

http://llvm.org/docs/CommandLine.html#response-files

Sam
-----Original Message-----
From: Matt Beaumont-Gay [mailto:matthewbg at google.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2012 1:35 PM
To: Liu, Yaxun (Sam)
Cc: Chris Lattner; llvm-commits at cs.uiuc.edu; llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu
Subject: Re: [llvm-commits] patch to enable response file support in
ParseCommandLineOptions

Can we call this a "parameters file"? I find "response file"
to be non-obvious.

On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 8:18 AM, Liu, Yaxun (Sam) <Yaxun.Liu at amd.com>
wrote:
> Thanks Chris for the comment.
>
>
>
> Since there is no objection, I attached a new patch which enables 
> response file support and removes the argument for 
> controlling/disabling response file support. The patch also contains a 
> simple test. I did regression check and there are no regressions.
>
>
>
> + llvmdev
>
>
>
> Sam
>
>
>
> From: Chris Lattner [mailto:clattner at apple.com]
> Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2012 2:20 PM
> To: Liu, Yaxun (Sam)
> Cc: llvm-commits at cs.uiuc.edu
> Subject: Re: [llvm-commits] patch to enable response file support in 
> ParseCommandLineOptions
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sep 21, 2012, at 2:07 PM, "Liu, Yaxun (Sam)" <Yaxun.Liu at
amd.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> Hi,
>
>
>
> I am sending a patch to enable response file support in 
> ParseCommandLineOptions. With this change, all llvm tools will support 
> response file. This helps overcome the command line length limit which 
> we encountered recently.
>
>
>
>
>
> This seems fine to me.  Is there any reason we *wouldn't* want a tool 
> to read response files?  If all tools should handle it, the argument 
> should just go away.
>
>
>
> -Chris
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> llvm-commits mailing list
> llvm-commits at cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvm-commits
>

On Oct 2, 2012, at 8:18 AM, "Liu, Yaxun (Sam)" <Yaxun.Liu at
amd.com> wrote:
> Thanks Chris for the comment.
>  
> Since there is no objection, I attached a new patch which enables response
file support and removes the argument for controlling/disabling response file
support. The patch also contains a simple test. I did regression check and there
are no regressions.
Looks good to me,

-Chris

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20121003/374f76f0/attachment.html>