Show -fclash-* Options in clash --show-options
#961
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
When calling clash with the --show-options flag, it now prints all options, including common clash options which were previously not being shown. It remains to be seen how to document all the flags which are added by clash (instead of GHC).
|
Closed in favour of #962 |
alex-mckenna
changed the title
-fclash-* Options in clash --show-options
alex-mckenna
requested review from
christiaanb and
leonschoorl
and removed request for
christiaanb
leonschoorl
approved these changes
Jan 13, 2020
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
When calling clash with the --show-options flag, it now prints
all options, including common clash options which were previously
not being shown.
It remains to be seen how to document all the flags which areadded by clash (instead of GHC).
EDIT: Flag reference is a separate issue, see #987