> Doesn't common.opt serve this purpose? But if I understand you
> correctly, the Ada front end alters semantics of flags in common.opt,
> which means we are in a bit of a difficult position here.
No, I meant splitting cc1_options into a base_options and cc1_options and
adding base_options only
On 04/01/2015 12:02 PM, Eric Botcazou wrote:
>> All the other in-tree front ends use it, including Java, Fortran, and Go.
>
> Out of laziness I'd say. ;-) AFAIK the Ada FE never did it.
Would it make sense to add “%(gnat1_options)”, so that Fedora can use it
specs-file-based
> All the other in-tree front ends use it, including Java, Fortran, and Go.
Out of laziness I'd say. ;-) AFAIK the Ada FE never did it.
> Would it be possible to add some other injection mechanism so that it is
> possible customize the gnat1 flags using the specs file mechanism?
ognized
> by gnat1.
Would it be possible to add some other injection mechanism so that it is
possible customize the gnat1 flags using the specs file mechanism?
--
Florian Weimer / Red Hat Product Security
> Can we just add “%(cc1_options)”, or is there a reason why it is missing?
It is not missing, reusing cc1_options is simply problematic because different
FEs can have different needs. In particular, in Ada we need to echo the order
of -g* and -m* switches (the "%{g*&m*}" thing) and cc1_options
> {"@ada",
>"\
> %{pg:%{fomit-frame-pointer:%e-pg and -fomit-frame-pointer are
> incompatible}}\
> %{!S:%{!c:%e-c or -S required for Ada}}\
> gnat1 %{I*} %{k8:-gnatk8} %{Wall:-gnatwa} %{w:-gnatws} %{!Q:-quiet}\
> %{nostdinc*} %{nostdlib*}\
> -dumpbase
> %{.adb:%b.adb}%{.ads:%b.
gcc/ada/gcc-interface/lang-specs.h has this:
{"@ada",
"\
%{pg:%{fomit-frame-pointer:%e-pg and -fomit-frame-pointer are
incompatible}}\
%{!S:%{!c:%e-c or -S required for Ada}}\
gnat1 %{I*} %{k8:-gnatk8} %{Wall:-gnatwa} %{w:-gnatws} %{!Q:-quiet}\
%{nostdinc*} %{nostdlib*}\
-dumpbase
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.
iles". Should it be possible to match against "-Wl,"
in a specs file?
Gunther
> I as sorry I repeat my appeal, but if really nobody works on Sparc
> or PowerPC processors and nobody wants to send me 'specs' file from
> directory > " /usr/lib/gcc-lib/name_of_compiler/lib/version/specs "
> or similar ???
You probably don't need t
I as sorry I repeat my appeal, but if really nobody works on Sparc or PowerPC
processors and nobody wants to send me 'specs' file from directory >
" /usr/lib/gcc-lib/name_of_compiler/lib/version/specs " or similar ???
One more t
Shaun Jackman wrote:
Is it possible by hacking the specs file to change the target for
arm-elf-gcc from -marm to -mthumb? I tried a few obvious things like
changing marm in *multilib_defaults to mthumb, but this did not have
the desired effect.
You have to do more than that. multilib_defaults
Shaun Jackman wrote:
Why does the above specs snippet cause gcc to forget it's linking
against thumb libraries?
The -mthumb support works by passing extra -L options to the linker.
Try using -v and looking at the linker options.
You didn't include your linker script, but a possibility here is tha
I have had no trouble specifiying the linker script using the -T
switch to gcc. I am now trying to specify the linker script from a
specs file like so:
%rename link old_link
*link:
-Thello.ld%s %(old_link)
gcc complains though about linking Thumb code against ARM libraries --
I've spec
Is it possible by hacking the specs file to change the target for
arm-elf-gcc from -marm to -mthumb? I tried a few obvious things like
changing marm in *multilib_defaults to mthumb, but this did not have
the desired effect.
Please cc me in your reply. Thanks!
Shaun
18 matches
Mail list logo
