public inbox for gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Costas Argyris <costas.argyris@gmail.com>
To: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] driver: Treat include path args the same way between cpp_unique_options and asm_options. [PR71850]
Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2023 09:29:21 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAHyHGCnSne4dLkxJdsw6dGJ017srfs7S4hnJ3bKvOf=xjqG=Kw@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAHyHGC=2uCz_N3zJ9vh1omEL_OV0QT4D0nqo15ksvxuMuWyZCw@mail.gmail.com>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2041 bytes --]

Pinging list one last time about this.

Proposed fix is to simply pass include paths to GNU AS through a @file, if
a @file has been provided to gcc in the first place:

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=54575&action=diff

That is, simply change %{I*} to %@{I*} in asm_options.

This mimics what is already happening for cpp_unique_options, and avoids
overflowing the windows command line
when many include paths are passed to gcc through @file.

On Mon, 27 Mar 2023 at 11:11, Costas Argyris <costas.argyris@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Would it be possible to make it version-dependent, then?
>
> As in, if GNU assembler is greater or equal to the version that
> supports @FILE, then pass @FILE to it, otherwise fall back to
> the current behavior.
>
> I assume most people nowadays would have a version of
> Binutils later than 2005, but if we could make it conditional on
> the version then even those with earlier version wouldn't break,
> they would just get the current behavior.
>
> On Mon, 27 Mar 2023 at 11:00, Xi Ruoyao <xry111@xry111.site> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 2023-03-27 at 10:36 +0100, Costas Argyris via Gcc-patches wrote:
>> > [ping^3]
>> >
>> > This looks like it fixes the bug and also unifies the way include paths
>> are
>> > passed from the driver to the compiler and assembler (when a @file has
>> > been passed to the driver in the first place).
>> >
>> > That is, when @file has been passed to the driver, put the include paths
>> > in a temp @file and pass them to the assembler.    Note this is already
>> > happening for the compiler, so this patch merely extends this logic to
>> the
>> > assembler.
>> >
>> > Is there any reason not to go for it?
>>
>> It's not supported by all GNU assembler releases.  For example, GCC
>> installation doc says we require Binutils >= 2.13.1 for i?86-*-linux*.
>> Binutils 2.13.1 was released in 2002, but @FILE support was added into
>> Binutils in 2005.
>> > >
>>
>> --
>> Xi Ruoyao <xry111@xry111.site>
>> School of Aerospace Science and Technology, Xidian University
>>
>

      reply	other threads:[~2023-04-17  8:29 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2023-03-02 19:25 Costas Argyris
2023-03-09 13:39 ` Costas Argyris
2023-03-20  9:47   ` Costas Argyris
2023-03-27  9:36     ` Costas Argyris
2023-03-27  9:59       ` Xi Ruoyao
2023-03-27 10:11         ` Costas Argyris
2023-04-17  8:29           ` Costas Argyris [this message]

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='CAHyHGCnSne4dLkxJdsw6dGJ017srfs7S4hnJ3bKvOf=xjqG=Kw@mail.gmail.com' \
    --to=costas.argyris@gmail.com \
    --cc=gcc-patches@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).