This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: -b vs -bundle
- From: James E Wilson <wilson at specifix dot com>
- To: Peter O'Gorman <peter at pogma dot com>
- Cc: Jack Howarth <howarth at bromo dot msbb dot uc dot edu>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org,gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, Geoff Keating <geoffk at apple dot com>
- Date: Thu, 04 Aug 2005 20:14:29 -0700
- Subject: Re: -b vs -bundle
- References: <20050731190310.CC3701DC154@bromo.msbb.uc.edu> <42F199F5.5040504@specifix.com> <42F20D0D.6070200@pogma.com>
On Thu, 2005-08-04 at 05:41, Peter O'Gorman wrote:
> + trying to interpret the rest of the command line.
> + Use heuristic that all copnfiguration names must have at least
> + one dash '-'. This allows us to pass options starting with -b. */
There is a typo here copnfiguration->configuration.
There are a number of valid configurations that do not contain a hyphen,
though they are not commonly used. For instance configuring for
--target=mips will give you a mips-elf toolchain that will install a
mips-gcc executable. I think it is reasonable to discourage use of such
ambiguous target names here. It helps that -b is also not commonly
used.
However, we do need to document this restriction. In fact, if you look
at the docs for the -b option, it gives an example that will no longer
work. (It is also an obsolete configuration.) So the docs need to be
updated to mention that the machine name must contain a hyphen, and to
use a more reasonable target, like arm-elf perhaps.
While we are at it, we could perhaps fix the -V docs to mention a
realistic gcc version number too. 2.0 is a little too old to be useful.
This revised patch does appear to fix the only complaint that Geoff had
with the original patch. I think it is OK with the typo fixed and the
addition of a doc change.
--
Jim Wilson, GNU Tools Support, http://www.specifix.com