From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 954 invoked by alias); 14 Jan 2011 12:07:05 -0000 Received: (qmail 942 invoked by uid 22791); 14 Jan 2011 12:07:03 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,RFC_ABUSE_POST X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail-ww0-f51.google.com (HELO mail-ww0-f51.google.com) (74.125.82.51) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 14 Jan 2011 12:06:57 +0000 Received: by wwe15 with SMTP id 15so2656545wwe.8 for ; Fri, 14 Jan 2011 04:06:55 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.227.138.76 with SMTP id z12mr651058wbt.27.1295006814932; Fri, 14 Jan 2011 04:06:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from richards-desktop-2.stglab.manchester.uk.ibm.com (gbibp9ph1--blueice2n1.emea.ibm.com [195.212.29.75]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id m13sm844634wbz.15.2011.01.14.04.06.52 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Fri, 14 Jan 2011 04:06:53 -0800 (PST) From: Richard Sandiford To: "Joseph S. Myers" Mail-Followup-To: "Joseph S. Myers" ,gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, echristo@apple.com, rdsandiford@googlemail.com Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, echristo@apple.com Subject: Re: [14/25] Specs cleanup: MIPS -call_shared -non_shared References: Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2011 12:58:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: (Joseph S. Myers's message of "Fri\, 14 Jan 2011 00\:12\:01 +0000 \(UTC\)") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii 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 X-SW-Source: 2011-01/txt/msg00956.txt.bz2 "Joseph S. Myers" writes: > In addition to the specs mentioned in patch 13, various MIPS targets > have specs passing -call_shared and -non_shared to the linker. While > these options do exist with the GNU linker, there is nothing > MIPS-specific about them and there should be nothing MIPS-specific > about such options being accepted by the driver; the appropriate > dependence is on the target operating system. Thus, this patch > removes them also from specs for non-IRIX targets. OK to commit? I'm not sure this is a good idea. I'd agree with your logic if we were starting from scratch, but I don't see the need to change from historical precendent now. Richard