This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@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: PATCH (trunk rev.119231): ability to disable an option at configure time

From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at false dot org>
To: Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gmail dot com>
Cc: Basile STARYNKEVITCH <basile at starynkevitch dot net>, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2006 17:59:59 -0500
Subject: Re: PATCH (trunk rev.119231): ability to disable an option at configure time
References: <20061126224301.GA25585@ours.starynkevitch.net> <1164581791.19849.174.camel@celery.andrew.com>

On Sun, Nov 26, 2006 at 02:56:30PM -0800, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> In fact the reason why we have options in general is to disable
> expensive processing and not configure options.  Now defaulting to
> on/off is a different story but fully disabling an option seems wrong.

I agree; I don't think we should be making this distinction.  If an
option isn't compiled in for some reason (e.g. because an external
library was missing), we should still recognize the option so that we
can give a sensible error message.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery

Follow-Ups:
- Re: PATCH (trunk rev.119231): ability to disable an option at configure time
  - From: Basile STARYNKEVITCH

References:
- PATCH (trunk rev.119231): ability to disable an option at configure time
  - From: Basile STARYNKEVITCH
- Re: PATCH (trunk rev.119231): ability to disable an option at configure time
  - From: Andrew Pinski

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