This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH][ARM] Support arm-android-eabi
- From: "=?big5?b?RG91ZyBLd2FuICjD9q62vHcp?=" <dougkwan at google dot com>
- To: "Mark Mitchell" <mark at codesourcery dot com>
- Cc: gcc-patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 22:49:10 -0700
- Subject: Re: [PATCH][ARM] Support arm-android-eabi
- References: <498552560806271116o2f5618f6m230c1453dfa873c4@mail.gmail.com> <48656BAA.9080107@codesourcery.com> <498552560806281105y4b57ba94p53d375cb5cafed3a@mail.gmail.com> <4867D662.2040203@codesourcery.com> <498552560806291228q25344823k4c3a9644c45f1cf2@mail.gmail.com> <4867E4D9.8040503@codesourcery.com> <498552560806301522l721a55d6qc31cf0e929f7e825@mail.gmail.com> <4869B235.1000909@codesourcery.com>
2008/6/30 Mark Mitchell <mark@codesourcery.com>:
> This version looks reasonable to me. But, I want to allow the ARM backend
> maintainers a chance to comment. If you don't hear anything in a week,
> please ping me.
Thanks. I will wait for a week then.
> I don't know. Do we do that in any other backend? In my ideal world,
> there'd be a "--with-options=" option to configure that would cause the
> driver to assume those options appeared on every command-line. Then, you
> could just configure with that.
I don't think we do that in any backend. My proposal is quite a hack.
I like your idea better. It is sufficient for my purpose but I don't
think a single option is sufficient in general. We may need a family
of options for different front-end to pass front-end depended options.
Passing specs will be even better IMHO.
-Doug
> For example:
>
> configure --with-options="-mandroid -meb"
>
> would be a way of saying that:
>
> gcc -c foo.c
>
> should be treated as equivalent to:
>
> gcc -mandroid -meb -c foo.c
>
> Maybe the string passed in could be a specs string which would allow a bit
> more power, potentially.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> --
> Mark Mitchell
> CodeSourcery
> mark@codesourcery.com
> (650) 331-3385 x713
>