public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "joseph at codesourcery dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug driver/48524] spec language does not cover switches with separated form
Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2011 00:27:00 -0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <bug-48524-4-jmbenw6zqQ@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <bug-48524-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48524

--- Comment #3 from joseph at codesourcery dot com <joseph at codesourcery dot com> 2011-04-10 00:27:28 UTC ---
On Sat, 9 Apr 2011, dirtyepic at gentoo dot org wrote:

> Sorry, i just wanted a trivial example.  The actual rule we use is 
> 
> %{!D_FORTIFY_SOURCE:%{!D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=*:%{!U_FORTIFY_SOURCE:-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2}}}
> 
> but this is just one example of several.  The reason we use specs instead of
> just changing the default is so we can easily bypass them at runtime.  This
> allows us, for example, to have a single compiler for both normal and hardened
> profiles.
> 
> I understand what you're saying, but it still seems like an omission to me to
> not have a way to match switches with separate arguments.  Surely this isn't
> the only case where this is useful?

The same principle applies that if you wish to submit a patch to add such 
a feature it is desirable to have a (properly functional) use case in FSF 
GCC, as code with no such use case is liable to be removed in cleanups.


  parent reply	other threads:[~2011-04-10  0:27 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2011-04-09  2:35 [Bug driver/48524] New: " dirtyepic at gentoo dot org
2011-04-09 11:28 ` [Bug driver/48524] " joseph at codesourcery dot com
2011-04-09 18:51 ` dirtyepic at gentoo dot org
2011-04-10  0:27 ` joseph at codesourcery dot com [this message]
2011-04-12  2:22 ` vapier at gentoo dot org
2011-04-13  3:49 ` dirtyepic at gentoo dot org
2011-12-17 20:33 ` zorry at gentoo dot org
2011-12-17 21:22 ` zorry at gentoo dot org
2011-12-18 20:46 ` zorry at gentoo dot org
2012-02-08 21:38 ` jsm28 at gcc dot gnu.org

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=bug-48524-4-jmbenw6zqQ@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ \
    --to=gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org \
    --cc=gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).