------- Comment #12 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2010-04-15 22:01 ------- Subject: Re: Unexpected error message for bad command line argument
On Thu, 15 Apr 2010, manu at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote: > I just want to know whether my current approach is feasible or will be > overridden by this work, so I don't waste my free time on this. I do not advise stopping fixing bugs just because some future work may implement a more general infrastructure. I would expect the changes for the multilibs proposal to involve a long series of incremental patches against trunk rather than a single large patch dump (given that it involves an audit of all specs for all targets for all options defined in specs, and those are liable to change fast, working other than on trunk would be a bad idea). I don't see adding function pointers as a particular improvement over the existing code where switch statements can already handle group options including setting option variables only if they are still -1 (as done for various options at present); marking group options only seems useful to me if the .opt file also lists implications so that the ordering rules are handled automatically. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43687
