Re: Review of --enable-gold=both patch

[Paolo Bonzini <bonzini at gnu dot org>]

On 06/28/2010 02:02 AM, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> I've reviewed this patch:
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-04/txt00090.txt
>
> I think the general idea is good, but I'm not happy about a couple of
> details:
>
> * --enable-gold=both and --enable-gold=ld are not good spellings.

Agreed, but...

> We already have --with-gnu-ld and --with-ld=/some/path.  Instead of
> --enable-gold (or --enable=gold=gold), we should add --with-gold.  And,
> if both --with-gnu-ld and --with-gold are present, that can be
> equivalent to --enable-gold=both.

... this is wrong.  --with-* is for host characteristics, --enable-* is 
for characteristics of the package that is built.

I think the right way to spell "use both" is "--enable-ld --enable-gold".

> * The stuff where we figure out what target support gold is too much of
>   a hack.  Every time someone changes gold, we'll have to change that
> too.  If the user says --with-gold, just believe them.  For a one-tree
> build, gold's configure script will presumably complain.

Agreed.  It can be enhanced later.

Paolo