search for: e831ac75

By my understanding, the proposal is that the user input looks something like: #pragma linker_directive("lib", "m") which is passed essentially as is to the linker, i.e. the directive payload is a pair of strings, the first being "lib", the second "m". It is then up to the linker to decide if it supports "lib" directives, and translate that into

> On Jan 7, 2018, at 5:02 PM, Cary Coutant <ccoutant at gmail.com> wrote: > >> I think we all agree that blindly allowing the linker to honor the options >> would be scary. I agree that we should whitelist the options, and am of the >> opinion that we should force validation on the linker side (use of any >> option which the linker doesn't support in this

...something very much like -framework, where include files and library > > search paths are handled together. > > > > -cary > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20180109/e831ac75/attachment.html>