This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Updated --with-cpu patch, v9
On Tue, May 13, 2003 at 07:39:55PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> Neat! Just one thing I dislike about it:
>
> On May 12, 2003, Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@mvista.com> wrote:
>
> > +to apply if a default with this name was specified. The string @samp{VALUE}
> > +in the spec will be replaced by the value of the default everywhere it
> > +occurs.
>
> I'd rather have some special spec for this (%(VALUE) or so, instead of
> using a fixed string that might be legitimately used in specs). But
I can use %(VALUE) if you prefer; that makes sense and is easy.
> then, why not go ahead and define the defaults as separate specs
> (%(default_cpu_spec), %(default_tune_spec)) etc, and rely on
> DRIVER_SELF_SPECS alone?
This seemed like a really, really good idea, so I went and thought
about it for a while. The answer is, because then they'd have to be
quite a bit more complicated. DRIVER_SELF_SPECS are always applied;
these are conditionally applied based on the results of configure,
which is why they have individual names. If I put them in
DRIVER_SELF_SPECS they'd have to be wrapped in a predicate for
"%(default_cpu_spec) defined", and I want to keep them simple.
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer