From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Alexey Zaytsev" Subject: Re: Handling of -specs in cgcc Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 21:28:26 +0400 Message-ID: References: <118833cc0807221020m44938f77l70324a548baa4551@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from yw-out-2324.google.com ([74.125.46.30]:22489 "EHLO yw-out-2324.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750961AbYGVR23 (ORCPT ); Tue, 22 Jul 2008 13:28:29 -0400 Received: by yw-out-2324.google.com with SMTP id 9so835571ywe.1 for ; Tue, 22 Jul 2008 10:28:28 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <118833cc0807221020m44938f77l70324a548baa4551@mail.gmail.com> Content-Disposition: inline Sender: linux-sparse-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-sparse@vger.kernel.org To: Morten Welinder Cc: linux-sparse@vger.kernel.org, Morten Welinder On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 9:20 PM, Morten Welinder wrote: > On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 1:00 PM, Alexey Zaytsev > wrote: >> [Added the new address to the CC] > > ("troll.com" is a bitkeeper bug. Use a machine named "troll" and > bitkeeper would > happily add ".com".) > > With respect to the substance, I am not sure why you want to remove -specs. > It was never meant to take a filename -- it takes a token like "i86" and adds > options for that. That is not generally very useful, but has its uses > for cross- > compilation. But won't gcc fail in such case? Maybe we should not remove, but replace it with a unique option to specify for which architecture sparse should check? > > Morten >