Re: c++/10069: -include switch is improperly handled

[Sean McNeil <sean at mcneil dot com>]

It would appear that this issue has been addressed somewhere else.  It
was a bug in how the cc1plus executable handled switches.  That is why I
gave the patch to cp/g++spec.c that recognized the switch -include as
taking an argument.

I'm not exactly sure how it was addressed.  I'm suspicious that this
problem may come back later.  It is peculiar that c++spec.c has to know
about switches that take arguments at all.  I'm talking about the check:

        else if (((argv[i][2] == '\0'
                     && (char *)strchr ("bBVDUoeTuIYmLiA", argv[i][1])
!= NULL)
                    || strcmp (argv[i], "-Xlinker") == 0
                    || strcmp (argv[i], "-Tdata") == 0))

Perhaps the cpp initialization now pulls the -include arguments off the
list?

Sean
   
On Sat, 2003-03-15 at 13:52, Neil Booth wrote:
> Sean McNeil wrote:-
> 
> > No, I am not using PCH.  I'm trying to use the --include switch but it
> > isn't recognized by C++ as a switch with 2 arguments and so it gets
> > improperly handled.  It ends up reordering my switches and passes -O2 as
> > the file to include and tries to compile the include file as an input
> > file.
> 
> By "C++" do you mean the g++ driver?  That may well be a bug.  If so,
> the place to look is cp/lang-specs.h.
> 
> > So I observed that
> > 
> > gcc -include hack.h -O2 test.cc
> > 
> > would end up as
> > 
> > switches:
> > -include -O2
> > 
> > input files:
> > hack.h test.cc
> > 
> > thus it would fail because it cannot find the file "-O2" and because it
> > would precompile hack.h into hack.pch.
> 
> LOL.  Though if you're not using PCH I don't understand your comment.
> 
> Neil.