On Thu, Mar 17, 2022 at 12:21:36PM -0400, James K. Lowden wrote: > On Wed, 16 Mar 2022 14:45:33 -0400 > Marek Polacek <pola...@redhat.com> wrote: > > Hi Marek, > > > Let's avoid -f-foo; use -ffoo instead, like the rest of GCC. > > Sure. I hadn't noticed the distinction. > > > > In cobol/lang.opt, I have: > > > > > > indicator-column > > > > Make this 'findicator-column='. Does that help? > > Yes, with that change, the option & argument are passed. But ... why?
I think Jon and Joseph answered your questions now. > It's my understanding that the -f prefix indicates a switch, meaning: > > 1. It does not take an argument It may, as Jon showed. > 2. GCC accepts a -fno- alternative, automatically Right, unless it's RejectNegative. > 3. The "f" stands for "flag", meaning on/off. It does stand for "flag", and it looks like at some point in ancient history if was on/off, but then came options like -falign-loops=N. > My option has no alternative, if you'll pardon the pun. I don't see > the point in confusing the user by suggesting it does. > > The fine manual says: > > By default, all options beginning with "f", "W" or "m" are > implicitly assumed to take a "no-" form. This form should not be > listed separately. If an option beginning with one of these > letters does not have a "no-" form, you can use the > 'RejectNegative' property to reject it. > > That isn't quite accurate. The "no-" form isn't "implicitly assumed". > What would "explicitly assumed" look like, btw? I guess that you'd have two separate entries in whatever.opt: ffoo ... fno-foo ... > More accurate would be > to say a "fno-" form is automatically accepted or generated. Computer > code does not make assumptions; programmers do. TBH, I don't see how that would be any more accurate that what we have now. Anyway, did you figure it out or are there some lingering questions? Marek
