This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: PATCH for Re: contrib/gcc_update
- To: Gerald Pfeifer <pfeifer at dbai dot tuwien dot ac dot at>
- Subject: Re: PATCH for Re: contrib/gcc_update
- From: Carlo Wood <carlo at alinoe dot com>
- Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 17:26:16 +0200
- Cc: Phil Edwards <pedwards at disaster dot jaj dot com>, Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>, Brad Lucier <lucier at math dot purdue dot edu>, Tom Tromey <tromey at redhat dot com>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, Bryce McKinlay <bryce at waitaki dot otago dot ac dot nz>
- References: <20010523152112.A374@alinoe.com> <Pine.BSF.firstname.lastname@example.org>
On Wed, May 23, 2001 at 03:30:18PM +0200, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> On Wed, 23 May 2001, Carlo Wood wrote:
> > It would be nice when it was possible to somehow pass the tag to
> > contrib/gcc_build update (which then calls gcc_update).
> > Then I don't have to edit gcc_update anymore :).
> You can pass gcc_update additional command-line options, so it is
> sufficient to hack gcc_build.
> In fact, I just checked and
> contrib/gcc_update -r gcc_latest_snapshot
> is one of the examples I added at the top of gcc_update. ;-)
> (Or did I misunderstand what you want?)
No, that is what I am asking for:
To add a new option to gcc_build, so allows me to pass a tag to gcc_update.
The result will be that *I* don't have to edit gcc_update anymore when
I want to use 'gcc_build update'.
Carlo Wood <email@example.com>