Re: target_flags

[Mike Stump <mrs at apple dot com>]

On Monday, March 10, 2003, at 12:42 PM, Zack Weinberg wrote:
> DJ Delorie <dj at redhat dot com> writes:
>
> > > Ok, so I am working on a port (rs6000) that is out of target_flags by
> > > about 4 flags (in my tree).  :-(  What do I do now?
> >
> > I proposed a solution a year ago:
> >
> > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2002-03/msg00833.html
>
> That looks like, at least, a way forward.  I am willing to approve a
> complete version of that patch, if Mike agrees it solves his problem.

Yes, it would provide greater flexibility in solving problems like 
mine.  I don't demand it yet, as I really need it for our 3.3 tree, and 
I don't think 3.3 should take on this level of change at this point.  
In 3.4, there are enough spare flags again, right now anyway, that I 
can use them directly without the need for the above patch.

Maybe the change would be less invasive if instead of replacing 
TARGET_SWITCHES, we complemented it with TARGET_SWITCHES2...  This 
would remove the need to redo all existing ports.  90% of ports will 
never need the extra functionality...
This type of change would also make it more palatable for 3.3.

For now, I will just employ the status quo solution that David pointed 
out.  I just don't want people to give me grief later, if I used that 
solution in a gcc submission.  :-(

Thanks.