This is the mail archive of the
gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
[Bug c/48083] New: DEPENDENCIES_OUTPUT + -no-integrated-cpp produces bad dependencies
- From: "cgd at google dot com" <gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- To: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2011 01:26:56 +0000
- Subject: [Bug c/48083] New: DEPENDENCIES_OUTPUT + -no-integrated-cpp produces bad dependencies
- Auto-submitted: auto-generated
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48083
Summary: DEPENDENCIES_OUTPUT + -no-integrated-cpp produces bad
dependencies
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
AssignedTo: unassigned@gcc.gnu.org
ReportedBy: cgd@google.com
gcc version 4.6.0 20110311 (experimental) (GCC), but I reproduced this all the
way back to 4.2.x.
$ : > null.c
# Hey, we have an empty file!
$ DEPENDENCIES_OUTPUT=/dev/stdout ./gcc -c null.c
null.o: null.c
# Yeah! Those are my deps all right!
$ DEPENDENCIES_OUTPUT=/dev/stdout ./gcc -c null.c -no-integrated-cpp
null.o: null.c
cccUba7s.o: /tmp/cccUba7s.i
# Huh?!?! WHAT?!?!?!
also happens with -save-temps or -traditional-cpp instead of
-no-integrated-cpp.
also happens with SUNPRO_DEPENDENCIES instead of DEPENDENCIES_OUTPUT.
what's happening is that -no-integrate-cpp causes cc1 to be invoked twice:
once with the original source file,
and once with the .i file output by the first invocation.
While the second invocation would have such as -MMD stripped, it still have has
the DEPENDENCIES_OUTPUT or SUNPRO_DEPENDENCIES variables set in its
environment.
there's a horrible kludge that can be used to make this work as expected
(strategically insert -MF/dev/null into the second cc1 invocations in
default_compilers), that would be Wrong.
Probably a better solution would be to add a new internal option, to indicate
that the 'stage' of the compilation, and then use that to avoid processing the
env vars.
(I would suggest a new -M option to cancel dependency generation, and then pass
that internally ... but i think that could be really confusing because of the
way gcc handles (or doesn't handle) relative parameter position.)