This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH] Fix gcc -v --help (PR middle-end/37576)
- From: Michael Meissner <meissner at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com>
- To: Ian Lance Taylor <iant at google dot com>
- Cc: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>, gnu at the-meissners dot org, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2008 14:40:12 -0400
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix gcc -v --help (PR middle-end/37576)
- References: <20080919115301.GA26183@hs20-bc2-1.build.redhat.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org>
On Tue, Oct 07, 2008 at 07:35:00AM -0700, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> Jakub Jelinek <email@example.com> writes:
> > The recently added CL_SAVE is actually a flag, not a whole new kind of
> > option, at least for --help purposes. The options will have CL_TARGET
> > set too usually and should be IMHO printed under target specific options in
> > that case, rather than "options usable in target attribute".
> > CL_MIN_OPTION_CLASS is used in two places, in this place we IMHO don't
> > want to include CL_SAVE in there, but in the other place (assert that
> > there are fewer languages than log2(CL_SAVE)) it needs to be CL_SAVE.
> Why is CL_SAVE listed with the option classes rather than the option
> attributes? It seems to me that CL_SAVE should move to the subsequent
> list in opts.h (the one starting with CL_DISABLED) and that
> CL_MIN_OPTION_CLASS should be set back to CL_PARAMS. At least, I
> can't see why on would ever want to set CL_SAVE without also setting
Probably because I wasn't thinking of the -v support. As I recall, it got
implemented several different ways in the course of adding target specific
> Moving CL_SAVE in that way seems right and should accomplish the same
> goal as this patch.
Yes, this sounds correct. Sorry about putting it in the wrong category.
Michael Meissner, IBM
4 Technology Place Drive, MS 2203A, Westford, MA, 01886, USA