This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Is this supposed to work, or am I loopy?
- To: Nick Clifton <nickc at redhat dot com>
- Subject: Re: Is this supposed to work, or am I loopy?
- From: Phil Edwards <pedwards at disaster dot jaj dot com>
- Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2001 16:36:40 -0500
- Cc: jbuck at racerx dot synopsys dot com, dewar at gnat dot com, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- References: <200101082059.MAA26521@elmo.cygnus.com>
On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 12:59:04PM -0800, Nick Clifton wrote:
> : The driver distributes options to the tools that they are intended
> : to work with, for the most part passing flags through unchanged to
> : the preprocessor (OK, that goes away now for the most part), main
> : compiler, linker, and assembler. -Wl, is a mechanism that lets
> : anything be passed, including switches that have a conflicting
> : meaning. For -R there is no conflicting meaning.
> Ok, so the basic complaint is that since no other tool uses the -R
> option the gcc compiler driver ought to be smart enough to known that
> it can pass -R on to the linker, right ?
Yes, pretty much. With or without an incompatability warning. (I for one
would have appreciated knowing about -Wl back in my student days, before
I had broken the info(1) program to my will and could read the GCC manual.)
In another message,
> : 3) I feel that we should recognize and warn about the problem
> : rather than passing it through and exacerbating the
> : misunderstanding.
> Do you mean that gcc should never accept -R, even on a Solaris
> targeted toolchain ?
No, I meant that on systems where we /don't/ pass -R, we should warn.
pedwards at disaster dot jaj dot com | pme at sources dot redhat dot com
devphil at several other less interesting addresses in various dot domains
The gods do not protect fools. Fools are protected by more capable fools.