From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Phil Edwards To: nobody@gcc.gnu.org Cc: gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: c/2678: gcc/g++ should stick compilation options into the .o file Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2001 05:16:00 -0000 Message-id: <20010429121601.15920.qmail@sourceware.cygnus.com> X-SW-Source: 2001-04/msg00718.html List-Id: The following reply was made to PR c/2678; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Phil Edwards To: "Joseph S. Myers" Cc: gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: c/2678: gcc/g++ should stick compilation options into the .o file Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2001 06:50:29 -0400 On Sun, Apr 29, 2001 at 11:56:01AM -0000, Joseph S. Myers wrote: > On 29 Apr 2001, Phil Edwards wrote: > > > I can't see any obvious documentation of .note sections in the gas source, > > and I don't see .command mentioned at all. I wouldn't mind playing with this > > idea while waiting on compiles, if you can point me towards some usage docs. > > .note is where GCC used to output the useless "01.01" strings for every > file. .commment is where it outputs the compiler version string. I think that's .ident, not .comment. (Was ".command" a typo for ".comment"?) > As with > the compiler version string, compilation options are useful information. I just implemented this, sort of. At least, it switches to the .note section, but then just spews text. What would the correct directive be at that point? .ascii? Um, there's a /lot/ of text produced from print_switch_values. This sounds like something we'd like to have on by default, but that's about fifteen lines of options. Phil -- pedwards at disaster dot jaj dot com | pme at sources dot redhat dot com devphil at several other less interesting addresses in various dot domains The gods do not protect fools. Fools are protected by more capable fools.