On Sun, Feb 17, 2019 at 11:30:50PM +0000, Ramsay Jones wrote: > > > On 17/02/2019 15:31, Luc Van Oostenryck wrote: > > This experimental series contains: > > * some cleanup patches in preparation of: > > * Uwe's patch for gcc -dumpmachine but: > > - with more code sharing > > - using a pattern for the platform (and so > > is much more generic) > > - added support for x86-x32 > > * tentative cleanup of cgcc's add_specs(), splitting > > it into an 'OS' part and an 'arch' part. > > > > All this is not really tested, higly experimental, ... > > > > Note: the patches should be applied over the previous series > > adding support for '-mfloat-abi'. > > > > The series is also available at: > > git://github.com/lucvoo/sparse-dev.git cgcc-dumpmachine > > I have tested this branch on Linux Mint 18.3 32-bit x86, Linux > Mint 19.1 64-bit x86_64 and cygwin 64-bit x86_64. (I have not > had time to try Ubuntu and fedora, but I expect to see the > identical behaviour). > > No regressions noted. This is with 'make check; make selfcheck; > make install' along with a git build. > > This does not help with platforms I don't have available, of > course (particularly mips/arm), but it is something. ;-) Absolutely! Thank you very much. > I have some minor comments on the patches, but I will have to > wait until tomorrow now (I have to get some sleep). > > However, there was one thing I wanted to mention tonight. These > patches change the interface of cgcc in a non-backward compatible > way. In particular, the -target=<spec> parameter, which can and > pretty much _had_ to be specified multiple times (well OK twice > in practice), to specify _both_ the 'OS' and 'arch' specs. Indeed. It was a quick try to cleanup this code and I didn't realized that it broke '-target' (I also had no idea you're using it. I guess I'm understanding better now your email from last week mentioning it). > ... > > Note that the tokens 'host_os_specs' and 'host_arch_specs' > were useful (even though they _could have_ been replaced > on the command-line by "$(uname -s)" and "$(uname -m)" > respectively). > > This is a bad loss of functionality. It's only concerning the last 2 patches, right? Please consider them as removed. Thanks again, -- Luc
