Pedro Alves <pal...@redhat.com> writes: >> OK, you've all made clear you have your sensible reasons to have the '.info' > > ... >> it available only though the new, undocumented option named (literally) >> "hack!info-in-builddir". I hope this is acceptable to you. > ... >> *undocumented* option '!hack!info-in-builddir' (whose name should >> made it clear that it is not meant for public consumption). > > So will this be called a hack forever, or will the naming be revisited > before a release? IMO, either the feature is sensible, and there doesn't > seem to be a good reason other users couldn't also use it, and hence it > should get a non-hackish name and be documented; or it isn't sensible, and > then it shouldn't exist. Why the second-class treatment?
I suspect there are better, cleaner, ways to accomplish the underlying goal, but I suppose the gcc maintainers don't want to spend the time fiddling around with their build infrastructure for such a minor issue... -miles -- Alone, adj. In bad company.