Re: [RFC] Adding Python as a possible language and it's usage

[konsolebox <konsolebox at gmail dot com>]

Just another user here.

I'm not a fan of Python and I don't want it added as a dependency to my
favorite compiler. If I would build a minimal system with a toolchain, I
wouldn't want Python to be a mandatory component, so please don't. Thanks.

P.S. I don't mind Perl. It's a legacy tool next to Awk.


On Tue, Jul 17, 2018, 8:49 PM Martin Liška <mliska@suse.cz> wrote:

> Hi.
>
> I've recently touched AWK option generate machinery and it's quite
> unpleasant
> to make any adjustments. My question is simple: can we starting using a
> scripting
> language like Python and replace usage of the AWK scripts? It's probably
> question
> for Steering committee, but I would like to see feedback from community.
>
> There are some bulletins why I would like to replace current AWK scripts:
>
> 1) gcc/optc-save-gen.awk is full of copy&pasted code, due to lack of flags
> type classes multiple
> global variables are created (var_opt_char, var_opt_string, ...)
>
> 2) similar happens in gcc/opth-gen.awk
>
> 3) we do very many regex matches (mainly in gcc/opt-functions.awk), I
> believe
>    we should come up with a structured option format that will make
> parsing and
>    processing much simpler.
>
> 4) we can come up with new sanity checks of options:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81397
>
> 5) there are various targets that generate *.opt files, one example is ARM:
> gcc/config/arm/parsecpu.awk
>
> where transforms:
> ./gcc/config/arm/arm-cpus.in
>
> I guess having a well-defined structured format for *.opt files will make
> it easier to write generated opt files?
>
> I'm attaching a prototype that can transform optionlist into options-save.c
> that can be compiled and works.
>
> I'm looking forward to a feedback.
> Martin
>