Re: -R gcc option?

Re: -R gcc option?

[Anthony Green]

On Thu, 2002-04-11 at 12:28, Phil Edwards wrote:
> > Does current gcc supports, plans to support 
> > the -R/path/lib directives, as in Sun Operating 
> > Systems?
> 
> It already does, when you use gcc on a Sun system.

Hmm... this doesn't appear to be documented, while gcj does have a
documented -R option...

@item -R @var{resource-name}
This option is used to tell @command{gcj} to compile the contents of a
given file to object code so it may be accessed at runtime with the core
protocol handler as @var{core:/resource-name}.

I guess this is a problem.

AG

Re: -R gcc option?

[Bryce McKinlay]

Anthony Green wrote:

>On Thu, 2002-04-11 at 12:28, Phil Edwards wrote:
>
>>>Does current gcc supports, plans to support 
>>>the -R/path/lib directives, as in Sun Operating 
>>>Systems?
>>>
>>It already does, when you use gcc on a Sun system.
>>
>
>Hmm... this doesn't appear to be documented, while gcj does have a
>documented -R option...
>
>@item -R @var{resource-name}
>This option is used to tell @command{gcj} to compile the contents of a
>given file to object code so it may be accessed at runtime with the core
>protocol handler as @var{core:/resource-name}.
>
>I guess this is a problem.
>

Yes, we should change GCJ's "-R" and also "-D" flags to something else, 
to avoid conflicting with the existing gcc options.

regards

Bryce.

Re: -R gcc option?

[Anthony Green]

On Thu, 2002-04-11 at 17:33, Bryce McKinlay wrote:
> Yes, we should change GCJ's "-R" and also "-D" flags to something else, 
> to avoid conflicting with the existing gcc options.

I can understand -R, but gcc's existing -R option really needs to be 
documented somewhere (or am I just not seeing it?).

I don't think I agree about -D.  I don't see how it can conflict with
the C/C++ version of -D.  It's also compatible with javac, no?

AG

Re: -R gcc option?

[Per Bothner]

Anthony Green wrote:
> I can understand -R, but gcc's existing -R option really needs to be 
> documented somewhere (or am I just not seeing it?).

It's not a standard option, I think.

> I don't think I agree about -D.  I don't see how it can conflict with
> the C/C++ version of -D.

Not directly, though it may cause some problems with some Makefile -
for example libtool ones.  (But the solution there is probably to
fix libtool.)

> It's also compatible with javac, no?

It's compatible with java.  javac does not take -D flags.
Thus gij has to take -D flags, but it was a debatable design
decision as to whether gcj should take -D the way it does.  But
now it does and I don't see any strong enough reason to change it.
-- 
	--Per Bothner
per@bothner.com   http://www.bothner.com/per/

Re: -R gcc option?

[Bryce McKinlay]

Anthony Green wrote:

>I don't think I agree about -D.  I don't see how it can conflict with
>the C/C++ version of -D.
>

The problem is that there is no way to set a preprocessor define if you 
want to compile a C++ file with gcj,  eg:

gcj Foo.java natFoo.cc -DFOO

Of course, this is possible to work around by invoking c++ separately.

regards

Bryce.

Re: -R gcc option?

[Phil Edwards]

On Fri, Apr 12, 2002 at 12:11:14AM -0700, Anthony Green wrote:
> 
> I can understand -R, but gcc's existing -R option really needs to be 
> documented somewhere (or am I just not seeing it?).

It's not documented.  It only exists on those platforms whose native
compiler also understands -R.  (I think this was intended as some sort of
transitional weaning measure until users on that platform stopped using
-R and switched to... whatever -R's implementor was hoping they'd switch to.)

There's lots of good flame material in the archives over gcc's -R switch.


Phil

-- 
If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater
than the animating contest for freedom, go home and leave us in peace.  We seek
not your counsel, nor your arms.  Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you;
and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.            - Samuel Adams

Re: -R gcc option?

[Tom Tromey]

>>>>> "Anthony" == Anthony Green <green@redhat.com> writes:

Anthony> Hmm... this doesn't appear to be documented, while gcj does
Anthony> have a documented -R option...

I submitted a high priority PR for this.  I can fix it unless somebody
gets there first.  Any suggestions for what we should name the option?

Tom