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]

Re: gcc doesn't accept specs options anymore


On Mon, 7 May 2012, Christian Bruel wrote:

> > * It would be useful for the compiler to be able to export structured 
> > information about all its options for use by tools such as IDEs.
> 
> If the option is only supported by a BSP, and not by the compiler, I
> don't see how the compiler could report it since it doesn't depend on
> static information known at build time.
> A direction would be to add this information in the user spec rules
> 
> *ldruntime:
> + %{foo: -lfoo} %{help: "describe foo "}
> 
> I'm not aware about such machinery. maybe an idea of improvement ?

The structured information in .opt files is a lot more than just help 
text, and is only likely to get more complicated over time (hence plugins 
being a more likely way such information might be provided than specs).

> I don't like this -mbsp= alternative a lot, seems confusing, not
> elegant, and not general for other uses (could be a runtime
> customization, not bsp).
> What about delimiters, something like --start-specs ... --end-specs ?

What about a generic name such as -fextension- (or both -fextension- and 
-mextension-) for options that GCC itself will ignore, if -mbsp= is 
considered inappropriate?  I'd prefer that to delimiting such options with 
--start-specs and --end-specs.

-- 
Joseph S. Myers
joseph@codesourcery.com


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