This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Suggestion for option
- To: Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>
- Subject: Re: Suggestion for option
- From: Nix <nix at esperi dot demon dot co dot uk>
- Date: 27 Jul 2001 21:51:12 +0100
- Cc: Joern Rennecke <amylaar at redhat dot com>, "RenE J.V. Bertin" <rjvbertin at hotmail dot com>, "pedwards at disaster dot jaj dot com" <pedwards at disaster dot jaj dot com>, "gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- References: <322240000.996264810@warlock.codesourcery.com>
On Fri, 27 Jul 2001, Mark Mitchell said:
> I'm not sure I understand the issue. Are we worried about producing
> bogus output assembly files and the fact that people may be piping the
> assembly into an assembler? It seems to me that we should emit some
> garbage into it that we know will not assemble properly. That will
> prevent the situation that the user gets a new .o that does not work
> properly.
The intentional garbage should probably be an explanatory string
(`Source file contained errors' or something), so that if the assembler
gives the erroring piece of code the user can see what the problem was
at a glance.
(I'm not even going to think about I18Ning that string, although I
expect gettext could handle it as easily as it does any other literal
string...)
--
`It's all about bossing computers around. Users have to say "please".
Programmers get to say "do what I want NOW or the hard disk gets it".'
-- Richard Heathfield on the nature of programming