This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org 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]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: Updated --with-cpu patch, v9


On Tue, May 13, 2003 at 07:39:55PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> Neat!  Just one thing I dislike about it:
> 
> On May 12, 2003, Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@mvista.com> wrote:
> 
> > +to apply if a default with this name was specified.  The string @samp{VALUE}
> > +in the spec will be replaced by the value of the default everywhere it
> > +occurs.
> 
> I'd rather have some special spec for this (%(VALUE) or so, instead of
> using a fixed string that might be legitimately used in specs).  But

I can use %(VALUE) if you prefer; that makes sense and is easy.

> then, why not go ahead and define the defaults as separate specs
> (%(default_cpu_spec), %(default_tune_spec)) etc, and rely on
> DRIVER_SELF_SPECS alone?

This seemed like a really, really good idea, so I went and thought
about it for a while.  The answer is, because then they'd have to be
quite a bit more complicated.  DRIVER_SELF_SPECS are always applied;
these are conditionally applied based on the results of configure,
which is why they have individual names.  If I put them in
DRIVER_SELF_SPECS they'd have to be wrapped in a predicate for
"%(default_cpu_spec) defined", and I want to keep them simple.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software                         Debian GNU/Linux Developer


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