Skip to content

Commit

Permalink
Add a note clearifying option parsing (#56285)
Browse files Browse the repository at this point in the history
To help with #56274
  • Loading branch information
paulmelis authored Dec 10, 2024
1 parent 9160e04 commit 29a7ce4
Showing 1 changed file with 4 additions and 0 deletions.
4 changes: 4 additions & 0 deletions doc/src/manual/command-line-interface.md
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -222,6 +222,10 @@ The following is a complete list of command-line switches available when launchi
|`--permalloc-pkgimg={yes\|no*}` |Copy the data section of package images into memory|
|`--trim={no*\|safe\|unsafe\|unsafe-warn}` |Build a sysimage including only code provably reachable from methods marked by calling `entrypoint`. The three non-default options differ in how they handle dynamic call sites. In safe mode, such sites result in compile-time errors. In unsafe mode, such sites are allowed but the resulting binary might be missing needed code and can throw runtime errors. With unsafe-warn, such sites will trigger warnings at compile-time and might error at runtime.|

Options that have the form `--option={...}` can be specified either as `--option=value` or as `--option value`. For example, `julia --banner=no` is equivalent to `julia --banner no`. This is especially relevant for options that take a filename for output, because forgetting to specifying the argument for (say) `--trace-compile` will cause the option following it to be interpreted as the filename, possibly unintentionally overwriting it.

Note that options of the form `--option[=...]` can **not** be specified as `--option value`, but only as `--option=value` (or simply `--option`, when no argument is provided).

!!! compat "Julia 1.1"
In Julia 1.0, the default `--project=@.` option did not search up from the root
directory of a Git repository for the `Project.toml` file. From Julia 1.1 forward, it
Expand Down

3 comments on commit 29a7ce4

@DilumAluthge
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@nanosoldier runtests(["PackageCompiler"])

@maleadt
Copy link
Member

@maleadt maleadt commented on 29a7ce4 Dec 11, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

What's the reasoning behind testing PackageCompiler again? AFAICT there have been no relevant changes since your previous test, either here, 6cb9f04...29a7ce4, or in the PackageCompiler.jl repository.

@nanosoldier
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The package evaluation job you requested has completed - possible issues were detected.
The full report is available.

Please sign in to comment.