On Wed, July 9, 2014 00:35, joha...@nacs.net wrote: > On Tue, Jul 08, 2014 at 01:21:07PM +0200, Tomas Hajny wrote: >>On Tue, July 8, 2014 12:07, Mark Morgan Lloyd wrote: >>> Tomas Hajny wrote: >>> >>>>> Incidentally, how does one get a list of fpc's >>>>> options? I don't mean fpc -h since that actually >>>>> shows ppcXXX's options, but how does one get minimal >>>>> info on fpc itself such as a reminder of the -V >>>>> option? . . >>Anyway - if you want to find out options specific to the fpc helper >>(and/or you don't have a compiled trunk compiler readily available), you >>can also use: >> >>grep -e "^F\*" < fpcsrc/compiler/msg/errore.msg | cut -c3- | >>sed "s/^1/-/" | sed "s/^2/ -/" | sed "s/_/ /" > > Yes, I should know better than to reply here on this, but > I am fascinated by how this one line UNIX command can > parse the error message source file and extract the option > information. > > In general would it be more efficient to combine all the > sed commands into one with multiple -e options, saving the > extra pipes between commands, or would there be drawbacks? > > grep -e "^F\*" < fpcsrc/compiler/msg/errore.msg | cut -c3- | > sed -e "s/^1/-/" -e "s/^2/ -/" -e "s/_/ /" > > Apologies for being off-topic. I am interested in what it > is safely compatible to do across various environments in > clever compile scripts.
<OT>Combining it would be indeed more efficient; I'm no expert on sed and simply didn't bother to try being efficient . I don't think that there should be any drawbacks, but I don't want to pretend to have any special knowledge of possible differences in various sed implementations.</OT> BTW, I just added the previously missing information about option '@' to the help pages in trunk (together with some improvements necessary to show this option properly). Tomas _______________________________________________ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
