From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 78988 invoked by alias); 23 Apr 2015 20:42:37 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 78975 invoked by uid 89); 23 Apr 2015 20:42:37 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-3.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=no version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Thu, 23 Apr 2015 20:42:36 +0000 Received: from int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.23]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id t3NKgZM1012137 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL) for ; Thu, 23 Apr 2015 16:42:35 -0400 Received: from host1.jankratochvil.net (ovpn-116-27.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.116.27]) by int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id t3NKgVGv004600 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 23 Apr 2015 16:42:34 -0400 Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2015 20:42:00 -0000 From: Jan Kratochvil To: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Cc: Phil Muldoon Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/4] libcc1: set debug compile: Display GCC driver filename Message-ID: <20150423204231.GA23639@host1.jankratochvil.net> References: <20150423203827.23973.72954.stgit@host1.jankratochvil.net> <20150423203834.23973.8401.stgit@host1.jankratochvil.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20150423203834.23973.8401.stgit@host1.jankratochvil.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2015-04/txt/msg01451.txt.bz2 On Thu, 23 Apr 2015 22:38:34 +0200, Jan Kratochvil wrote: > Unfortunately this changes libcc1 API in an incompatible way. There is > a possibility of a hack to keep the API the same - one could pass "-v" option > explicitly to set_arguments(), set_arguments() could compare the "-v" string > and print the GCC filename accordingly. Then the 'verbose' parameter of > compile() would lose its meaning. What do you think? This paragraph is no longer true, 'compile' keeps its parameter duplicate to the new 'set_arguments's one. Jan