This is the mail archive of the gcc@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

whither specs?


My recent patch to the driver allowed it to include target-dependent
code.  Now that we no longer need to encapsulate all the
target-dependent argument passing in a separate file, I think this is
a good time to sit back and ask ourselves:

- Do we still want to have the 'specs' file in $(gcc_tooldir)?  It's
  now redundant unless the user edits it, since the driver generated
  it in the first place.  I guess the real question is, "do we want
  to support the user changing this file?"  Is there a better way we
  could support the functionality that people try to get by changing
  this file?

- Do we want to keep supporting the -specs= command-line switch?  If
  we could come up with another mechanism for the things that people
  usually use this for, we could mark it as `obsolete' for GCC 3.2.

- Do we like to use specs internally?  I'm going to spend some time
  this week designing a way to have the backends provide C code to
  pass flags to the assembler, which should help with some of the more
  horrible problems in this area; see, for instance, asm_cpu_spec in
  rs6000.h.  Should this sort of thing be encouraged, or kept for
  those situations where the alternative is too terrible to contemplate?

-- 
- Geoffrey Keating <geoffk@geoffk.org> <geoffk@redhat.com>


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]