From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19834 invoked by alias); 9 Mar 2002 19:56:03 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-prs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-prs-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 19812 invoked by uid 71); 9 Mar 2002 19:56:01 -0000 Date: Sat, 09 Mar 2002 11:56:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20020309195601.19811.qmail@sources.redhat.com> To: nobody@gcc.gnu.org Cc: gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org, From: Andreas Schwab Subject: Re: preprocessor/5899: -M disables -dM Reply-To: Andreas Schwab X-SW-Source: 2002-03/txt/msg00297.txt.bz2 List-Id: The following reply was made to PR preprocessor/5899; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Andreas Schwab To: neil@gcc.gnu.org Cc: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: preprocessor/5899: -M disables -dM Date: Sat, 09 Mar 2002 20:46:45 +0100 neil@gcc.gnu.org writes: |> I'm not sure this behaviour is a good idea. The documentation in 3.0 for -dM begins "Instead of the normal output", and the documentation for -M begins "Instead of outputting the result of preprocessing, output a rule suitable for make". In other words, I think you're relying on undocumented behaviour that just happened to work. IMHO neither -dM nor -M produce "normal output", so it would not contradict the docs to output both. |> What did 2.95 do? I believe it output both to the same place. I'm waiting for confirmation from Chris Demetriou that the semantics of 3.1 now match 2.95 for -M etc., which is a regression that was fixed, and is pending for 3.0.5. If the 3.0 behaviour is not a regression from 2.95 then I see no reason to preserve it, particularly if it was undocumented. Both 2.95 and 3.0.4 behave as expected by glibc. Andreas. -- Andreas Schwab, SuSE Labs, schwab@suse.de SuSE GmbH, Deutschherrnstr. 15-19, D-90429 Nürnberg Key fingerprint = 58CA 54C7 6D53 942B 1756 01D3 44D5 214B 8276 4ED5 "And now for something completely different."