[distcc] gcc bootstraps with distcc
Alexandre Oliva
aoliva at redhat.com
Mon Aug 4 17:20:14 GMT 2003
On Aug 4, 2003, Neil Booth <neil at daikokuya.co.uk> wrote:
> Alexandre Oliva wrote:-
>> On Aug 3, 2003, Neil Booth <neil at daikokuya.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> > it would need to be -fpwd.
>>
>> Can you please explain to me why you think it makes more sense for the
>> flag to be -fpwd than -Pwd?
> It supports the no- form, and doesn't require SPEC changes.
But I think we *do* want spec changes. We want the cwd in the
preprocessed output if we're going to output debugging info. I could
arrange for the patch to not require spec changes as well, I just
don't see a reason for that.
Also, I don't think we want a negative form. I think this option is
strongly tied to -P as well (if you pass -P, you don't get the working
directory either), so -Pwd makes a lot of sense to me.
> Being an -f switch doesn't mean it's not for CPP - just look at
> c-opts.c for example.
Agreed. Still, I think -Pwd fits in better. I could rearrange it
such that it didn't require specs change, but think would be trickier
if we supported a negative form. Or rather a positive form, since the
code I have now is to omit the working directory, not to emit it, and
we couldn't emit if -P given, so we'd have to detect this case and
flag an error.
--
Alexandre Oliva Enjoy Guarana', see http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Red Hat GCC Developer aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org}
CS PhD student at IC-Unicamp oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist Professional serial bug killer
More information about the distcc
mailing list