There is a trend of having more optional options (usually security
hardening related) like -z cet-report=, -z bti-report=, -z force-bti.
If ld.lld 14.0.0 uses a warning, in 15/16/17/... timeframe when people
add new options to software, they can worry less about linker errors on ld.lld 14.0.0.
In some cases -z foo does essential work where a silent ignore can be
problematic, but the user has received a warning. From my observation, the
doing-essential-work -z foo is much fewer than the converse. In addition,
the user who cares can use --fatal-warnings (Note: GNU ld doesn't upgrade warnings to errors).
It is unclear whether we need something like clang -Wunknown-warning-option.
If we ever run into unfortunate transition like -z start-stop-gc, the
affected software (e.g. ldc is a compiler which passes linker options to the underlying ld)
can blindly add the -z option, without worrying it may cause a linker error to LLD 14.0.0.
Comment is now stale as we're not reporting an error. Perhaps
// Report a warning for an unknown -z option to match ld.bfd behavior.