This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [RFC PATCH] -grecord-gcc-switches (PR other/32998)
On Thu, 21 Jul 2011, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> So
>
> gcc_checking_assert (save_decoded_options[j].canonical_option[0][0] == '-');
> switch (save_decoded_options[j].canonical_option[0][1])
>
> instead? The reason for checking the option text instead of code
Yes.
> was just because there are hundreds of -W options etc. and I didn't want to
> list them all and create a maintanance nightmare.
Flags such as CL_WARNING and the various bit-fields in struct cl_option
(bit-fields are preferred if --help doesn't need to care about a property
of an option) could be used, but I don't think it would really be an
improvement in this case.
> If -no can't make it to cc1, I'll drop it. Is -fdump* checking that way
> ok (with the orig_option_with_args_text -> canonical_option[0] change)?
Yes, that seems reasonable.
--
Joseph S. Myers
joseph@codesourcery.com