This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: How to handle linker options beginning with -f?

>>>>> "Stan" == Stan Shebs <> writes:

    >>  I actually think this is the best solution.

    Stan> However, this is not really a good idea, because it amounts
    Stan> to endorsing forking. 

Well, sort-of.  What it's really endorsing is picking a better name
for the option.

It's not really fair to blame us for causing a fork when it's Apple
that wrote a bunch of code on its own.

Apple simply cannot expect to make changes and then argue that not
accepting the changes will force a fork.

    Stan> Apple's option was called "-Zframework" or "-Qframework", I
    Stan> could stick it in LINK_SPEC and no one would care (at least


We should actually figure out a better way to do this.  

I'm not sure that we should add *any* more of these.  There's nothing
wrong with asking people to use -Wl, in my opinion.

    Stan> and it has been in use for many years already, so I think it
    Stan> has just as much (or more) justification to be in GCC as all
    Stan> those other linker options.

Apple could simply provide a wrapper/shell-script/modified gcc.c that
replaces `-framework' with `-Wl,-framework'.

I suppose we could maybe make that an automatic process by using some
kind of MD_REWRITE_COMMAND_LINE macro that allowed you to scan argv
when gcc.c gets started and rewrite it as you saw fit.  That would
seem reasonably sensible to me.  Then, you would just rewrite it
before the rest of the driver saw it.  And deprecate the heck out of

Mark Mitchell         
CodeSourcery, LLC     

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]