This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
New semicolon handling in specs uncovered questionable error text
- From: Loren James Rittle <rittle at latour dot rsch dot comm dot mot dot com>
- To: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2003 21:19:28 -0600 (CST)
- Subject: New semicolon handling in specs uncovered questionable error text
- Reply-to: rittle at labs dot mot dot com
Note the semicolon usage in the spec fragments below. Did a recent
mainline patch break this usage? How may I now quote said semicolon
usage in that error reporting context? I am sorry to bother the list
with this trivial stuff but I see no gcc/ChangeLog entry or new
commentary on spec formats to support the change to gcc/gcc.c that
would cause the failure mode (I do see the comment on the new spec
form that uses semicolons but I don't see how %e text would match it).
I suspect it is -r1.351 of gcc/gcc.c (but I thought I already resolved
the issues with that merge into mainline thus perhaps it is a latent issue).
gcc/config/alpha/freebsd.h: %{p:%e`-p' not supported; use `-pg' and gprof(1)} \
gcc/config/ia64/freebsd.h: "%{p:%e`-p' not supported; use `-pg' and gprof(1)} \
gcc/config/sparc/freebsd.h: %{p:%e`-p' not supported; use `-pg' and gprof(1)} \
gcc/config/i386/freebsd-aout.h: "%{p:%e`-p' not supported; use `-pg' [...]
Now, is there a better way to handle this situation than just adapting
the error message? I checked one random RH8 GNU/Linux box and I note
that it too has no prof(1) yet gcc there doesn't bother to inform the
user that -p is not supported. Perhaps, I should convert all FreeBSD
targets to include the following notice instead:
%{p:%nconsider using `-pg' with gprof(1)}
Or, should the entire line be axed since it appears that -p actually
produces a file that is readable by gprof(1)? It is just missing
some/most of the possible information required for full gprof reports.
Regards,
Loren