This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [RFC] Suggested replacement for specs and switch handling
- To: "Joseph S. Myers" <jsm28 at cam dot ac dot uk>, Neil Booth <neil at daikokuya dot demon dot co dot uk>
- Subject: Re: [RFC] Suggested replacement for specs and switch handling
- From: Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>
- Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2001 15:14:28 -0700
- cc: "gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
--On Sunday, June 24, 2001 04:20:23 PM +0100 "Joseph S. Myers"
<jsm28@cam.ac.uk> wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Jun 2001, Neil Booth wrote:
>
>> I don't like that - there is a lot of duplication amongst options
>> between front ends. I don't seriously think we're in danger of
>> running out of letters - we could even use printable chars if we had
>> to. Keeping things together is nicer IMO.
>
> I think it's nicer for front ends to be able to be separate. We want it
> to be possible, in principle, for a separate front end not to have a tight
> version dependency on the rest of GCC, but just to be able to have the
> subdirectories added and work, if it uses the documented interfaces. If
> it needs a patch to a central options file, such a patch is bound to
> conflict with changes to the central file between releases.
I agree. Imagine a distant future where the front-end is a dynamically
loaded module. A key means of managing complexity for front-end
developers is that they should not have to know about one-another;
if there are ways that the Java guys can affect the C++ front-end,
or vice versa, that's bad.
--
Mark Mitchell mark@codesourcery.com
CodeSourcery, LLC http://www.codesourcery.com