From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from foss.arm.com (foss.arm.com [217.140.110.172]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BFDBC3858299 for ; Thu, 22 Sep 2022 12:47:00 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org BFDBC3858299 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=foss.arm.com Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=foss.arm.com Received: from usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (unknown [10.121.207.14]) by usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 03BDA1595; Thu, 22 Sep 2022 05:47:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.2.78.76] (unknown [10.2.78.76]) by usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A510E3F73B; Thu, 22 Sep 2022 05:46:59 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <035eee11-01f6-8cd6-791a-cba628116bb1@foss.arm.com> Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2022 13:46:58 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.11.0 Subject: Re: Forward GCC '-v' command-line option to binutils assembler, linker (was: [PING] nvptx: forward '-v' command-line option to assembler, linker) Content-Language: en-GB To: Nick Clifton , Thomas Schwinge , Tom de Vries , binutils@sourceware.org, gcc@gcc.gnu.org References: <874k185ak4.fsf@dem-tschwing-1.ger.mentorg.com> <871qw08orn.fsf@euler.schwinge.homeip.net> <820c4820-aca2-29f2-8727-11aa3913ae68@suse.de> <878rmd84n6.fsf@euler.schwinge.homeip.net> <887f5ccb-e7b7-50e8-7356-24e4f4415104@redhat.com> From: Richard Earnshaw In-Reply-To: <887f5ccb-e7b7-50e8-7356-24e4f4415104@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1165.5 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,KAM_DMARC_STATUS,KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY,NICE_REPLY_A,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_NONE,TXREP autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org List-Id: On 22/09/2022 12:32, Nick Clifton via Gcc wrote: > Hi Thomas, > > >>>> +/* Linker supports '-v' option.  */ >>>> +#define LINK_SPEC "%{v}" >> >> ..., Tom rightfully asked: >> >>> [...] I wonder, normally we don't pass -v to ld, and need -Wl,-v for >>> that. >> >> So, on my quest for making things uniform/simple, I now wonder: should we >> also forward GCC '-v' to binutils linker, or is there a reason to not do >> that? > > Not really no.  Historically of course this has not been done, so changing > it now might surprise a few users.  But it should not be that big of an > issue. > > >>> So, any particular reason why we would do things differently for >>> nvptx? > > Nope, none at all. > > Harmonizing the effect of the -v option sounds like a good idea to me. > > Cheers >   Nick > What's wrong with users passing -Wa,-v or -Wl,-v to pass the option through to the assembler and linker respectively? The more flags like this we force pass to the additional tools the more likely we are to have problems when that tool is not from the GNU toolchain. R.