[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