On Tue, 19 Jan 2021, Nathan Sidwell wrote: > Joseph, > I was relying on this patch on the modules branch, but didn't realize the > implications when merging and thought it was just a cleanup. I'm not sure why > the driver wants to check here, rather than leave it to the compiler. Seems > optimizing for failure? The only difference I can think is that the diagnostic > might mention the driver name, rather than say (cc1plus), but that's a > different problem that I've also reported.
What do the error messages look like, before and after this patch, for the various cases? (Response file missing; file handled by e.g. cc1plus missing; file handled by the linker missing.) The check here dates back to commit 48fb792a91a6b0850d723dc87bcc18eeab7ac3f5 from 1993, so we don't have any further explanation of what motivated it. -- Joseph S. Myers jos...@codesourcery.com
