From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7607 invoked by alias); 16 Mar 2003 10:26:01 -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 7576 invoked by uid 71); 16 Mar 2003 10:26:01 -0000 Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2003 10:26:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20030316102601.7574.qmail@sources.redhat.com> To: nobody@gcc.gnu.org Cc: gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org, From: Neil Booth Subject: Re: c++/10069: -include switch is improperly handled Reply-To: Neil Booth X-SW-Source: 2003-03/txt/msg01055.txt.bz2 List-Id: The following reply was made to PR c++/10069; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Neil Booth To: Sean McNeil Cc: Steven Bosscher , gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org, nobody@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: c++/10069: -include switch is improperly handled Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2003 10:19:03 +0000 Sean McNeil wrote:- > It would appear that this issue has been addressed somewhere else. It Hmm. > was a bug in how the cc1plus executable handled switches. That is why I > gave the patch to cp/g++spec.c that recognized the switch -include as > taking an argument. > > I'm not exactly sure how it was addressed. I'm suspicious that this > problem may come back later. It is peculiar that c++spec.c has to know > about switches that take arguments at all. I'm talking about the check: If the driver doesn't know what takes arguments, it doesn't know reliably where the start and end of a switch is. > > else if (((argv[i][2] == '\0' > && (char *)strchr ("bBVDUoeTuIYmLiA", argv[i][1]) > != NULL) > || strcmp (argv[i], "-Xlinker") == 0 > || strcmp (argv[i], "-Tdata") == 0)) > > Perhaps the cpp initialization now pulls the -include arguments off the > list? If there is a driver problem it hasn't been worked around in cc1plus. Neil.