https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69805
--- Comment #5 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #4) > (In reply to vries from comment #3) > > This changes the semantics of greater_than_spec_func slightly. Strictly > > speaking not necessary to fix the ICE. But the new semantics will perhaps be > > easier to understand. > > In fact, I originally changed greater_than_spec_func to assert argc is odd, > and > verify that both argv[0] and argv[argc - 3] is "-" and compared argv[argc - > 2] with argv[argc - 1]. But then I found %* and thought changing the > semantics of %:gt() might be cleaner, allow better composability of spec > language. Agreed. > It could be perhaps even cleaner if we add some spec grammar extension that > gives you the last word from list of words I also wondered about this. We could have '%$' as the '%*' variant that only gives the last entry instead of all the entries (Using '$' as an attempt to make it intuitive by connecting the 'last' meaning to the regexp end-of-line meaning for '$'). But AFAIU, you propose something more generic.
