Re: Forward GCC '-v' command-line option to binutils assembler, linker (was: [PING] nvptx: forward '-v' command-line option to assembler, linker)

[Richard Earnshaw <Richard.Earnshaw@foss.arm.com>]

On 22/09/2022 12:32, Nick Clifton via Gcc wrote:
> Hi Thomas,
> 
> 
>>>> +/* Linker supports '-v' option.  */
>>>> +#define LINK_SPEC "%{v}"
>>
>> ..., Tom rightfully asked:
>>
>>> [...] I wonder, normally we don't pass -v to ld, and need -Wl,-v for
>>> that.
>>
>> So, on my quest for making things uniform/simple, I now wonder: should we
>> also forward GCC '-v' to binutils linker, or is there a reason to not do
>> that?
> 
> Not really no.  Historically of course this has not been done, so changing
> it now might surprise a few users.  But it should not be that big of an
> issue.
> 
> 
>>> So, any particular reason why we would do things differently for
>>> nvptx?
> 
> Nope, none at all.
> 
> Harmonizing the effect of the -v option sounds like a good idea to me.
> 
> Cheers
>    Nick
> 

What's wrong with users passing -Wa,-v or -Wl,-v to pass the option 
through to the assembler and linker respectively?  The more flags like 
this we force pass to the additional tools the more likely we are to 
have problems when that tool is not from the GNU toolchain.

R.