Re: -b vs -bundle

2005-08-06 Thread James E Wilson
On Thu, 2005-08-04 at 20:54, Peter O'Gorman wrote: > 2005-08-?? Peter O'Gorman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > PR 21366 > * gcc.c (process_command): Check the argument to -b has a dash. > * doc/invoke.texi: Update -b and -V docs. I checked in the patch. -- Jim Wilson, GNU Tools Support,

Re: -b vs -bundle

2005-08-04 Thread Peter O'Gorman
James E Wilson wrote: This revised patch does appear to fix the only complaint that Geoff had with the original patch. I think it is OK with the typo fixed and the addition of a doc change. OK, done. Thank you. Peter 2005-08-?? Peter O'Gorman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> PR 21366 *

Re: -b vs -bundle

2005-08-04 Thread James E Wilson
On Thu, 2005-08-04 at 05:41, Peter O'Gorman wrote: > + trying to interpret the rest of the command line. > + Use heuristic that all copnfiguration names must have at least > + one dash '-'. This allows us to pass options starting with -b. */ There is a typo here copnfiguration->confi

Re: -b vs -bundle

2005-08-04 Thread Peter O'Gorman
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 James E Wilson wrote: | Jack Howarth wrote: | |> In compiling xplor-nih under the gcc/g++ of 4.1 branch instead |> of Apple's gcc/g++ 4.0 compilers from Xcode 2.1, I noticed that the |> gnu gcc compiler doesn't gracefully handle the -bundle flag

Re: -b vs -bundle

2005-08-03 Thread James E Wilson
Jack Howarth wrote: In compiling xplor-nih under the gcc/g++ of 4.1 branch instead of Apple's gcc/g++ 4.0 compilers from Xcode 2.1, I noticed that the gnu gcc compiler doesn't gracefully handle the -bundle flag. On Apple's compiler I can have a Makefile entry like... This is PR 21366. Yo

Re: -b vs -bundle

2005-08-01 Thread Jack Howarth
Geoff, The problem is that I haven't ever submitted any paperwork so anything I touch will be tainted. If you could post a revised patch that applies to gcc main trunk, I'll test it locally and confirm that it works. Jack

Re: -b vs -bundle

2005-08-01 Thread Geoff Keating
On 01/08/2005, at 1:44 PM, Jack Howarth wrote: Geoff, What I don't understand is how Apple's compiler can parse the -bundle as the first argument and the gnu gcc compiler can't. Shouldn't the same mechanism Apple uses to allow this to work be backportable into gnu gcc? No. There's lots of

Re: -b vs -bundle

2005-08-01 Thread Jack Howarth
Geoff, What I don't understand is how Apple's compiler can parse the -bundle as the first argument and the gnu gcc compiler can't. Shouldn't the same mechanism Apple uses to allow this to work be backportable into gnu gcc? Jack

Re: -b vs -bundle

2005-08-01 Thread Geoff Keating
On 31/07/2005, at 12:03 PM, Jack Howarth wrote: In compiling xplor-nih under the gcc/g++ of 4.1 branch instead of Apple's gcc/g++ 4.0 compilers from Xcode 2.1, I noticed that the gnu gcc compiler doesn't gracefully handle the -bundle flag. On Apple's compiler I can have a Makefile ent

-b vs -bundle

2005-07-31 Thread Jack Howarth
In compiling xplor-nih under the gcc/g++ of 4.1 branch instead of Apple's gcc/g++ 4.0 compilers from Xcode 2.1, I noticed that the gnu gcc compiler doesn't gracefully handle the -bundle flag. On Apple's compiler I can have a Makefile entry like... createSharedModule = $(CXX) -bundle \