This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Fwd: [PATCH]: Clean up driver processing for IMA
- From: Caroline Tice <ctice at apple dot com>
- To: gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 16:10:46 -0800
- Subject: Fwd: [PATCH]: Clean up driver processing for IMA
(I hit "reply" instead of "reply-all"; sorry).
Begin forwarded message:
From: Caroline Tice <email@example.com>
Date: March 22, 2004 4:10:03 PM PST
To: Daniel Jacobowitz <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH]: Clean up driver processing for IMA
On Mar 22, 2004, at 3:57 PM, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
On Mon, Mar 22, 2004 at 03:48:44PM -0800, Caroline Tice wrote:As far as I can tell, the line above *NEVER* used IMA. IMA was ONLY turned on if you added the "-c" flag as
This patch cleans up the way the gcc driver passes multiple input files
to the compiler. In particular, it
adds a new flag "combine". When this flag is passed to the compiler
driver, the driver attempts to pass
(for example) all the *.c files to the cc1 compiler together, allowing
for IMA . This patch also fixes the
driver so that "-save-temps" works properly with "-combine", and so
that "-combine" can also handle
linker files and source files for multiple languages (for example if
you pass it a combination of c and
c++ files, it will attempt to pass all the c files to cc1 at once, but
will pass the c++ files individually to
cc1plus, then pass the appropriate options to the assembler/linker). I
have currently not modified the c++ or objective-c compiler specs to
cope with multiple source files at once.
I have tested this on an Apple G4 running apple-darwin, and an i386
running Linux. It has bootstrapped
and I am in the middle of running the DejaGnu tests. (I also tested
various combinations of the
"-combine" "-save-temps" "-S" and "-c" flags on a multiple file C
Assuming it passes all the tests is this ok to commit to gcc 3.5?
I didn't review the patch, but I can still tell you that a patch whose
purpose is to change option handling is not OK without matching
Does this change gcc -o foo foo.c bar.c back to not using IMA?
well as the "-o" flag. I had assumed that the reason for this was that people did not want IMA turned on most
of the time. (And it also never worked with the -save-temps flag). So it seemed reasonable to make this
assumption explicit and add a flag that actually gives direct control for turning on/off IMA. If people would rather
just have it on all the time by default, that would be easy enough to correct.
You are right, I forgot to add documentation for the "combine" option, but I will be happy to do so.
-- Caroline Tice