Re: [RFC] Suggested replacement for specs and switch handling

[Neil Booth <neil at daikokuya dot demon dot co dot uk>]

Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:-

> Perhaps a branch is called for?

I want a branch even less :-)

> -g has an optional argument, but only attached, right?  Zack's scheme
> could probably have -g and -g%, defining a % to match at least one
> character.

Yes, all optional arguments are attached.  Otherwise the syntax is
ambiguous.  We could do like you suggest, I hadn't thought of that.

> I'd actually like to suggesat something like this:
> cpp,tcpp    -D%                     accumulate      D
> cpp,tcpp    "-D %"                  rewrite         -D%
>   -Dname            Define a macro with value 1
>   -Dname=expansion  Define a macro with value EXPANSION
> <blank line>
> backend             -falign-jumps=%         -      falign_jumps_eq
> ...

That was what I originally intended, but it might not be flexible
enough.  Also, like Zack mentioned, it's nice to have the switches in
a contiguous block.

Neil.