fix typo

Added test without segalign for comparison

LG, thank you!

const bool

rename var

Address review comment + removed public MaxSectionAlignment variable to different diff.

LG, thank you!

Include changes: specing and compile error fix

Test file uses CHECK-NEXT instead of CHECK

Address review comments

Removed extra OS

Address review comments

Fix diff

Revert last update, was a mistake

• [llvm-lipo] Implement -info

Updated alignment hardcoding

Addressed minor review comments

Removed fat64 flag and addressed other review comments.

@mtrent We have implemented create with the -fat64 flag to specify a fat64binary, similar to cctools lipo.
Do we still need this flag, or can we always create a fat64 binary?
Another option would be to have some sort of auto detection to create a fat64 binary when the offset of a section exceeds 32 bits.

Fixed style comments.

Addressed review comments.

I am getting the compile warnings below when compiling on gcc version 7.3.1.

Fixed small review comments

In D63341#1549652, @mtrent wrote:

Would be nice if "llvm-lipo -thin" printed a reasonable error message before dumping usage. Apple lipo will print "missing argument to -thin option"

Another difference is llvm-lipo will not validate the arch until all arguments are received, whereas Apple lipo will validate archs immediately. ("lipo -arch asdf")

Would be nice if "llvm-lipo" printed a list of valid archs when the arch is invalid. Currently it prints "llvm-lipo: error: Invalid architecture: asdf" and it exits. Apple lipo prints "unknown architecture specification flag: asdf in specifying thin operation: -thin asdf. known architecture flags are: ..."

PLEASE FIX: llvm-lipo does not support using "-o" in place of "-output"

Note: "llvm-lipo" does not work properly with certain Mach-O executables, such as those built with the -hideARM64 flag.

Supports -o for output flag. Fixed order of error checking.

Regarding the error messages, should should they replicate cctools lipo exactly?
Currently have small differences like "no output file specified" vs "thin expects a single output file".
If so, I can create a separate diff to change all the error messages.

Added comments, fixed error messages, and print error for archive files.

Clarified description.

Added more detail

Added Expected<> error check

Address review comments

Ping

Small changes from review comments

Address review comments

Diff already exists: D61969. I was just getting familiar with llvm.