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] Fix gcc -v --help (PR middle-end/37576)


On Tue, Oct 07, 2008 at 07:35:00AM -0700, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.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
> CL_TARGET.

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
options.
 
> 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
meissner@linux.vnet.ibm.com


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