Re: PR fortran/9038, a regression in 3.3/3.4 with respect to 3.2.

[Geoff Keating <geoffk at geoffk dot org>]

Neil Booth <neil at daikokuya dot co dot uk> writes:

> Toon Moene wrote:-
> 
> > >Hmm.  That's coming from something else; definitely not C switch
> > >handling.
> > 
> > Definitely.  So the question is: how do we prevent the passing on of 
> > this switch to the rest of cc1 in case cc1 is called with the -E switch ....
> > 
> > In f771, we just return -1 from ffe_decode_option - does that mean that 
> > setting `result' to -1 in c_common_decode_option will have the same effect ?
> 
> I don't understand the problem.  I thought the original problem was that
> the C front end doesn't accept the switch.  So I tell you how to get it
> to accept it.  Then you say the problem is that the C front end accepts
> the switch?
> 
> The correct place to modify C front end options is the big table in
> c-opts.c; nowhere else.

The problem is that the C frontend accepts -ffixed-<regname>, not
-ffixed-line-length-<n> or -ffixed-form.  I await the day that some
chip has a register named 'form'...

We have a lot of problems in this area; for instance,
-dynamic can mean 'pass -dynamic to the linker' or 'please switch on
all these -d options'.  I'm not sure what can be done about it other
than a complete redesign of GCC's options handling.

-- 
- Geoffrey Keating <geoffk at geoffk dot org>