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 21:59:44 +0400 Message-ID: References: <118833cc0807221020m44938f77l70324a548baa4551@mail.gmail.com> <118833cc0807221043n215f5378pa3f97bdf75452d0a@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from py-out-1112.google.com ([64.233.166.180]:37526 "EHLO py-out-1112.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750875AbYGVR7p (ORCPT ); Tue, 22 Jul 2008 13:59:45 -0400 Received: by py-out-1112.google.com with SMTP id p76so1438394pyb.10 for ; Tue, 22 Jul 2008 10:59:45 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <118833cc0807221043n215f5378pa3f97bdf75452d0a@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 9:43 PM, Morten Welinder wrote: >> But won't gcc fail in such case? > > It will not fail, as gcc does not see any of it. But since the defines might > not match what gcc runs with, you might get interesting effects. > Rright, it is not added to the gcc arguments. But this means that if the build system actually passes -specs= for some reason, gcc would never see them... On the other hand, have anyone ever seen the -specs option used in real life? >> Maybe we should not remove, but replace it >> with a unique option to specify for which architecture sparse should check? > > That's certainly possible, but I would wait for an actual problem showing > up before fixing anything. Right now, we can use -specs to get an idea > what sparse would find for a different arch without actually having a gcc > around that can cross compile. > > Morten >