On Sun, Oct 11, 2009 at 10:46:25PM -0700, Christopher Li wrote: > On Sun, Oct 11, 2009 at 3:47 PM, Josh Triplett <josh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > v2: Update cgcc and remove unnecessary (and now ignored) -Wall from a > > test case. > > Applied. BTW, what do you think about moving the logic from cgcc into > sparse directly? Definitely a good idea. The logic in cgcc seems to fall in two main categories: architecture-specific code and code to launch the C compiler. The former should definitely live in sparse itself, because otherwise sparse doesn't have all the proper built-in definitions when launched directly; I'd like to *avoid* the GCC approach of only supporting one architecture (or architecture family) at a time, though, and instead let the caller specify any architecture sparse supports. As for launching the compiler, it would prove fairly straightforward for sparse to strip any sparse-specific warning options from its command line and then launch $CC; in fact, if sparse did so right before exiting, it could just call exec and avoid the need to fork. - 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
