This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: build regression
>>>>> "Neil" == Neil Booth <neil@daikokuya.co.uk> writes:
Alexandre> I mean... If we (ok, you :-) are revamping the
Alexandre> command-line option handling, wouldn't we be better off
Alexandre> with a system that doesn't require all languages (even
Alexandre> those outside our tree) to agree on whether an option takes
Alexandre> arguments or not?
Neil> I disagree. You might have a point if there were, say, one or two
Neil> dozen switches where this was the case. However, it appears that
Neil> there are just these two, and the difference is not even user-visible.
Neil> It's not a maintenance problem either.
I think from a UI point of view, Neil's approach is sound, especially
as long as we can invoke "gcc -x language ..." to invoke non-C
compilers. In this situation uniformity seems important.
However, it does imply that we need some central clearinghouse for
adding new options. This is a change from the past.
For gcj our hope has been that we could have "gcj -C" be a drop-in
replacement for "javac". This means having option compatibility.
I wonder if this goal is still possible to achieve.
Tom