On Mon, Jul 04, 2005 at 01:15:19PM +0100, Andrew Haley wrote:
> Gunther Nikl writes:
> >
> > Sometimes I use -Wl,-r and I tried to change what options to pass
> > depending on -r.
>
> IMO that would be really bad. The point of "-Wl" is to pass arguments
> unmolested to the linker, bypassi
Gunther Nikl writes:
> On Fri, Jul 01, 2005 at 03:19:28PM -0700, James E Wilson wrote:
> > Gunther Nikl wrote:
> > >A few LINK_SPEC definitions contain a "%{Wl,*:%*}" sequence.
> >
> > There is no need to match -Wl options in LINK_SPEC, as it is handled by
> > the gcc.c driver. The driver
On Fri, Jul 01, 2005 at 03:19:28PM -0700, James E Wilson wrote:
> Gunther Nikl wrote:
> >A few LINK_SPEC definitions contain a "%{Wl,*:%*}" sequence.
>
> There is no need to match -Wl options in LINK_SPEC, as it is handled by
> the gcc.c driver. The driver support was added in gcc-2.5.8. I beli
Gunther Nikl wrote:
A few LINK_SPEC definitions contain a "%{Wl,*:%*}" sequence.
There is no need to match -Wl options in LINK_SPEC, as it is handled by
the gcc.c driver. The driver support was added in gcc-2.5.8. I believe
all of these LINK_SPEC checks for -Wl are obsolete code from gcc-2.
Hello!
A few LINK_SPEC definitions contain a "%{Wl,*:%*}" sequence. AFAICT this
sequence doesn't have any effect since at least GCC 2.95, because gcc.c
doesn't recored "-Wl" options in array "switch" (used in process_brace_body)
but stores them in "infiles". Should it be possible to match against
