Re: gcc doesn't accept specs options anymore

2012-05-07 Thread Joseph S. Myers
On Mon, 7 May 2012, Christian Bruel wrote: > > What about a generic name such as -fextension- (or both -fextension- and > > -mextension-) for options that GCC itself will ignore, if -mbsp= is > > considered inappropriate? I'd prefer that to delimiting such options with > > --start-specs and --

Re: gcc doesn't accept specs options anymore

2012-05-07 Thread Joel Sherrill
On 05/07/2012 05:09 AM, Joseph S. Myers wrote: On Mon, 7 May 2012, Christian Bruel wrote: Making the driver aware about all possible user defined options seems unpredictable. Was there any justification on removing this functionality or did I miss a point with the EXTRA_SPECS ? There are sever

Re: gcc doesn't accept specs options anymore

2012-05-07 Thread Christian Bruel
On 05/07/2012 03:11 PM, Christian Bruel wrote: > > >> What about a generic name such as -fextension- (or both -fextension- and >> -mextension-) for options that GCC itself will ignore, if -mbsp= is >> considered inappropriate? I'd prefer that to delimiting such options with >> --start-specs

Re: gcc doesn't accept specs options anymore

2012-05-07 Thread Christian Bruel
> What about a generic name such as -fextension- (or both -fextension- and > -mextension-) for options that GCC itself will ignore, if -mbsp= is > considered inappropriate? I'd prefer that to delimiting such options with > --start-specs and --end-specs. > you mean, gcc would ignore options

Re: gcc doesn't accept specs options anymore

2012-05-07 Thread Joel Sherrill
FWIW RTEMS has long used BSP provided spec files from the command line. We have issues with using them in that they are a clear place where we depend on something that is compiler specific. But we do use them. If the support for the -specs option suddenly disappeared, we would have a problem.

Re: gcc doesn't accept specs options anymore

2012-05-07 Thread Joseph S. Myers
On Mon, 7 May 2012, Christian Bruel wrote: > > * It would be useful for the compiler to be able to export structured > > information about all its options for use by tools such as IDEs. > > If the option is only supported by a BSP, and not by the compiler, I > don't see how the compiler could re

Re: gcc doesn't accept specs options anymore

2012-05-07 Thread Christian Bruel
> I think http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49858 is > essentially this issue. It can probably be closed as "won't fix", > though I notice the spec file format is still documented in the user > manual. > > Peter > yes, same root problem, although BSP design is a different usage (yet q

Re: gcc doesn't accept specs options anymore

2012-05-07 Thread Peter Bigot
On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 6:08 AM, Christian Bruel wrote: > > > On 05/07/2012 12:09 PM, Joseph S. Myers wrote: >> On Mon, 7 May 2012, Christian Bruel wrote: >> >>> Making the driver aware about all possible user defined options seems >>> unpredictable. Was there any justification on removing this >>>

Re: gcc doesn't accept specs options anymore

2012-05-07 Thread Christian Bruel
On 05/07/2012 12:09 PM, Joseph S. Myers wrote: > On Mon, 7 May 2012, Christian Bruel wrote: > >> Making the driver aware about all possible user defined options seems >> unpredictable. Was there any justification on removing this >> functionality or did I miss a point with the EXTRA_SPECS ? > >

Re: gcc doesn't accept specs options anymore

2012-05-07 Thread Joseph S. Myers
On Mon, 7 May 2012, Christian Bruel wrote: > Making the driver aware about all possible user defined options seems > unpredictable. Was there any justification on removing this > functionality or did I miss a point with the EXTRA_SPECS ? There are several motivations behind requiring all options