On Tue, 2008-07-22 at 13:43 -0400, 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. > > > 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. In general, it seems questionable to have cgcc handle an option named identically to one in GCC but have it behave differently than GCC. That said, I do think Sparse should handle different architectures without requiring compilation of a "cross-Sparse"; it really just needs a specs-equivalent for each architecture. - Josh Triplett -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-sparse" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
