This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH]: Clean up driver processing for IMA
- From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at false dot org>
- To: Caroline Tice <ctice at apple dot com>
- Cc: gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 18:57:26 -0500
- Subject: Re: [PATCH]: Clean up driver processing for IMA
- References: <743D0F9C-7C5B-11D8-9CD6-000393BB90B6@apple.com>
On Mon, Mar 22, 2004 at 03:48:44PM -0800, Caroline Tice wrote:
>
> This patch cleans up the way the gcc driver passes multiple input files
> to the compiler. In particular, it
> adds a new flag "combine". When this flag is passed to the compiler
> driver, the driver attempts to pass
> (for example) all the *.c files to the cc1 compiler together, allowing
> for IMA . This patch also fixes the
> driver so that "-save-temps" works properly with "-combine", and so
> that "-combine" can also handle
> linker files and source files for multiple languages (for example if
> you pass it a combination of c and
> c++ files, it will attempt to pass all the c files to cc1 at once, but
> will pass the c++ files individually to
> cc1plus, then pass the appropriate options to the assembler/linker). I
> have currently not modified the c++ or objective-c compiler specs to
> cope with multiple source files at once.
>
> I have tested this on an Apple G4 running apple-darwin, and an i386
> running Linux. It has bootstrapped
> and I am in the middle of running the DejaGnu tests. (I also tested
> various combinations of the
> "-combine" "-save-temps" "-S" and "-c" flags on a multiple file C
> program).
>
> Assuming it passes all the tests is this ok to commit to gcc 3.5?
I didn't review the patch, but I can still tell you that a patch whose
purpose is to change option handling is not OK without matching
documentation updates.
Does this change gcc -o foo foo.c bar.c back to not using IMA?
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer