Re: [PATCH] Fix driver/39293

[Dave Korn <dave dot korn dot cygwin at googlemail dot com>]

Mark Mitchell wrote:
> Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>> The logic is reasonably compelling, but I really hate the idea of adding
>> yet another weird option.  I think I would be happier with breaking
>> existing scripts.

  I'm just going to me-too the whole backward compatibility thing.  I think
breaks should be very very rare and that new command-line options are
preferable anytime they aren't egregiously unmaintainable.  I don't think that
telling everyone in the world to rewrite all their scripts and makefiles every
ten minutes (it sometimes seems!) is fair or reasonable of us.  (Then again
I'm still bitter over the whole -I- thing...)

>> Maybe we should ask: does anybody know of any scripts which would break,
>> and how difficult they would be to fix?
> 
> I have seen scripts which grab data from .s files generated with
> -save-temps.  Those aren't public; they're part of crufty build processes.

  And there are makefiles out there that people wouldn't even _realise_ were
depending on the implicit ".s.o:" rule, until it suddenly failed on them.

    cheers,
      DaveK