This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [distcc] gcc bootstraps with distcc
- From: Alexandre Oliva <aoliva at redhat dot com>
- To: Neil Booth <neil at daikokuya dot co dot uk>
- Cc: Thomas Walker <Thomas dot Walker at morganstanley dot com>, Zack Weinberg <zack at codesourcery dot com>, Dara Hazeghi <dhazeghi at yahoo dot com>, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, mbp at sourcefrog dot net, distcc at lists dot samba dot org
- Date: 04 Aug 2003 14:20:01 -0300
- Subject: Re: [distcc] gcc bootstraps with distcc
- Organization: GCC Team, Red Hat
- References: <orsmpjo3b6.fsf@livre.redhat.lsd.ic.unicamp.br><orof07nvhr.fsf@livre.redhat.lsd.ic.unicamp.br><20030711054556.GS29961@daikokuya.co.uk><ord6ght41a.fsf@livre.redhat.lsd.ic.unicamp.br><20030711220756.GT29961@daikokuya.co.uk><orvfu5b6d4.fsf@free.redhat.lsd.ic.unicamp.br><orptkanlu2.fsf@free.redhat.lsd.ic.unicamp.br><orzniqgb2h.fsf@livre.redhat.lsd.ic.unicamp.br><20030803173802.GA28693@daikokuya.co.uk><orsmohzd7e.fsf@free.redhat.lsd.ic.unicamp.br><20030804170407.GC15250@daikokuya.co.uk>
On Aug 4, 2003, Neil Booth <neil@daikokuya.co.uk> wrote:
> Alexandre Oliva wrote:-
>> On Aug 3, 2003, Neil Booth <neil@daikokuya.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> > it would need to be -fpwd.
>>
>> Can you please explain to me why you think it makes more sense for the
>> flag to be -fpwd than -Pwd?
> It supports the no- form, and doesn't require SPEC changes.
But I think we *do* want spec changes. We want the cwd in the
preprocessed output if we're going to output debugging info. I could
arrange for the patch to not require spec changes as well, I just
don't see a reason for that.
Also, I don't think we want a negative form. I think this option is
strongly tied to -P as well (if you pass -P, you don't get the working
directory either), so -Pwd makes a lot of sense to me.
> Being an -f switch doesn't mean it's not for CPP - just look at
> c-opts.c for example.
Agreed. Still, I think -Pwd fits in better. I could rearrange it
such that it didn't require specs change, but think would be trickier
if we supported a negative form. Or rather a positive form, since the
code I have now is to omit the working directory, not to emit it, and
we couldn't emit if -P given, so we'd have to detect this case and
flag an error.
--
Alexandre Oliva Enjoy Guarana', see http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Red Hat GCC Developer aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org}
CS PhD student at IC-Unicamp oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist Professional serial bug killer