tradtradcpp0, cpp spec bugs, and use of '|'

[Chris G. Demetriou]

[ cc'd gcc-patches since i've supplied a patch. ]

Neil Booth <neilb@earthling.net> writes:
> Chris G. Demetriou wrote:-
> 
> > (1) probably simple to fix: -traditional-cpp is now called an
> > unrecognized option, when given to gcc.  (Not quite sure where the
> > right place to fix this one would be...)
> 
> I'm not sure either.

originally i wasn't sure in the sense that i thought it would be one
of c_decode_option() and cpp_handle_option(), but then decided the
former, but then tried it and it didn't work.  8-)

I looked into it some more, and it looks like the problem is that
validate_switches() doesn't bother handling specs which have multiple
members separated by |.  so it'd look for and validate an argument
'traditional|ftraditional|traditional-cpp', but not,
e.g. traditional-cpp.  8-)

Below is a patch which addresses that (or attempts to 8-).  (It
doesn't even touch the 'tradtradcpp0' issue due to apparent incorrect
expectations about the meaning of '|'.)


i've not tested it particularly thoroughly -- just built it into my
cross-compiler (based on 2000-10-10 sources, with a slightly hacked
mips64-elf -ish target), and tried it out.  the 'unrecognized option'
warning is gone, at least.  and i ran it through gdb, and watched it
work, and it looked OK.

so: it's not been tested enough, somebody should test it more.  but i
can't easily to so right now.  8-)

I've verified that it applies, offset 46 lines, to the current sources
as of a few minutes ago.


2000-11-20  Chris Demetriou  <cgd@sibyte.com>

	* gcc.c (validate_switches): Validate multiple switches named
	in '|' (or) expressions in specs.


comments appreciated.



chris
===================================================================
Index: gcc/gcc/gcc.c
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvsroot/systemsw/tools/src/gcc/gcc/gcc.c,v
retrieving revision 1.3
diff -c -r1.3 gcc.c
*** gcc.c	2000/10/29 00:35:18	1.3
--- gcc.c	2000/11/21 02:01:13
***************
*** 5892,5898 ****
    register const char *p = start;
    const char *filter;
    register int i;
!   int suffix = 0;
  
    if (*p == '|')
      ++p;
--- 5892,5898 ----
    register const char *p = start;
    const char *filter;
    register int i;
!   int suffix;
  
    if (*p == '|')
      ++p;
***************
*** 5900,5910 ****
    if (*p == '!')
      ++p;
  
    if (*p == '.')
      suffix = 1, ++p;
  
    filter = p;
!   while (*p != ':' && *p != '}')
      p++;
  
    if (suffix)
--- 5900,5913 ----
    if (*p == '!')
      ++p;
  
+ next_member:
+   suffix = 0;
+ 
    if (*p == '.')
      suffix = 1, ++p;
  
    filter = p;
!   while (*p != ':' && *p != '}' && *p != '|')
      p++;
  
    if (suffix)
***************
*** 5912,5920 ****
    else if (p[-1] == '*')
      {
        /* Mark all matching switches as valid.  */
-       --p;
        for (i = 0; i < n_switches; i++)
! 	if (!strncmp (switches[i].part1, filter, p - filter))
  	  switches[i].validated = 1;
      }
    else
--- 5915,5922 ----
    else if (p[-1] == '*')
      {
        /* Mark all matching switches as valid.  */
        for (i = 0; i < n_switches; i++)
! 	if (!strncmp (switches[i].part1, filter, p - filter - 1))
  	  switches[i].validated = 1;
      }
    else
***************
*** 5927,5932 ****
--- 5929,5937 ----
  	    switches[i].validated = 1;
  	}
      }
+ 
+   if (*p++ == '|')
+     goto next_member;
  }
  
  /* Check whether a particular argument was used.  The first time we