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

[Alexandre Oliva <aoliva at redhat dot com>]

On Jul  1, 2001, Neil Booth <neil@daikokuya.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> Alexandre Oliva wrote:-
>> On Jun 28, 2001, Neil Booth <neil@daikokuya.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> 
>> > From the other parts of this thread, it seems to be believed that we
>> > can achieve in other, cleaner ways, the same things we are using specs
>> > for at present. [...]  So we should do that now.
>> 
>> My point is that this move is going to make a current wishlist, namely
>> the ability to install front-ends independently from the back-end,
>> much harder, if not impossible, to do.

> Why?  (I've lost the gist of this thread).  I agreed that the front
> end options be split out into a separate file.  Does that address your
> concerns?

Not if you pre-compile all of the options at build time, because then
you'd have to go back and collect all previously-installed front-end
options, merge them with whatever new front-end you want to install,
and pre-compile them again.

If we're going to have separate option description files for each
front-end, and we want the ability of dropping in new front-ends, I
don't see how pre-compilation of option files can be accomplished
without defeating the whole point of having separate description
files.

-- 
Alexandre Oliva   Enjoy Guarana', see http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Red Hat GCC Developer                  aoliva@{cygnus.com, redhat.com}
CS PhD student at IC-Unicamp        oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist    *Please* write to mailing lists, not to me