On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 10:03 PM, Josh Triplett
<josht@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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
How about just s/specs/arch/ ?
diff --git a/cgcc b/cgcc
index 4fab530..f4417dc 100755
--- a/cgcc
+++ b/cgcc
@@ -23,7 +23,7 @@ foreach (@ARGV) {
$m32 = 1 if /^-m32$/;
$m64 = 1 if /^-m64$/;
- if (/^-specs=(.*)$/) {
+ if (/^-arch=(.*)$/) {
$check .= &add_specs ($1);
$has_specs = 1;
next;
--
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
