This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: How to handle linker options beginning with -f?
>>>>> "Stan" == Stan Shebs <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
Stan> No, the real blame falls on the NeXT hackers who made the
Stan> changes without any apparent consideration of divergence
Stan> though not quite the same. If -Wl, is always OK, then why
Stan> not apply the reasoning to -l and -L and require users to
Stan> say -Wl,-lfoo and -Wl,-L/usr/bar ?
Because those are standard options supported by tons of compilers
(including, even, Windows compilers, for example). Therefore, GCC has
been designed to avoid placing options in this namespace. However, -f
(like -W) options are in GCC's standard option namespace.
>> Apple could simply provide a wrapper/shell-script/modified
>> gcc.c that replaces `-framework' with `-Wl,-framework'.
Stan> But that's not really any different from having a
Stan> locally-modified version of GCC.
Qualitatively, you could make that argument. But, practically, it's
very different. It's not a fork in GCC if Apple provides a
shell-script wrapper. Apple could deprecate -framework and provide
the wrapper, as a transition plan, and then eliminate it in favor of
-lframework or -Wl,-framework in the future. Then, you could remove
It's by no means a fork in the sense that EGCS of PGCC was a fork:
those forks modified core bits of the compiler in very significant
ways. What we're talking about here is just a script.
>> 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 it.
Stan> That's the kind of thing I'm wondering about. But since it
Stan> entails a rewrite of the code we currently use locally, I
Stan> don't want to get started on anything like that unless
Stan> there's at least a remote chance it will be accepted.
I think I might be in favor of this, FWIW.
See my subsequent post, where I try to argue that we might be able to
eliminate other compatibility options from the driver proper.
Actually, on looking at this more, I don't see that there are many of
these. In fact, there are no documented ones. There are only a few
options that are documented as affecting the linker (like -shared and
You said "if I'd added -Zfoo that would have been OK". Can you point
me at where such code appears? I believe it does, but I can't find it
If there isn't any other such code, that would argue against
MD_REWRITE_COMMAND_LINE -- there would clearly be little need.
Stan> As I write all this, it occurs to me that -l might actually
Stan> be made into a valid equivalent for -framework, so I'm going
Stan> to look into that too.
I don't understand that, but it sounds good. :-)
Mark Mitchell email@example.com
CodeSourcery, LLC http://www.codesourcery.com