From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 2382 invoked by alias); 8 Oct 2014 19:42:40 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 2373 invoked by uid 89); 8 Oct 2014 19:42:40 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-4.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Wed, 08 Oct 2014 19:42:39 +0000 Received: from int-mx13.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx13.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.26]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s98Jgbug018662 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Wed, 8 Oct 2014 15:42:37 -0400 Received: from host2.jankratochvil.net (ovpn-116-49.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.116.49]) by int-mx13.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s98JgYnj016065 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Wed, 8 Oct 2014 15:42:36 -0400 Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2014 19:42:00 -0000 From: Jan Kratochvil To: Eli Zaretskii Cc: tromey@redhat.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 14/14] the "compile" command Message-ID: <20141008194233.GA22378@host2.jankratochvil.net> References: <1403279874-23781-1-git-send-email-tromey@redhat.com> <1403279874-23781-15-git-send-email-tromey@redhat.com> <83fvizqtlq.fsf@gnu.org> <20141008174431.GB17704@host2.jankratochvil.net> <83wq8aies9.fsf@gnu.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <83wq8aies9.fsf@gnu.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2014-10/txt/msg00173.txt.bz2 On Wed, 08 Oct 2014 20:42:46 +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > AFAIK, MinGW compilers simply ignore -fPIC. My concern was only if the compiler refuses to run with such option which it does not. I agree it prints: :1:0: warning: -fPIC ignored for target (all code is position independent) [enabled by default] Before tuning the options to prevent for such target warnings it would be better to know whether it works at all. Besides other reasons (such as not having such platform available) I am not interested in this target so I hope it is OK to leave it up to mingw maintainers to at least test it before deciding what next. > But if the feature will only work with these options and no others, > then I guess it's OK to have them as fixed strings. As I said these options are required for {i686,x86_64}-linux. Thanks, Jan