On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 4:53 AM, Joseph S. Myers
<jos...@codesourcery.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Mar 2012, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> Hi Joseph,
>> I need to support InverseMask(XXX) in options without the corresponding
>> Mask(XXX) since XXX is never set directly via a command line option. This
>> patch adds a MaskNeeded property which turns InverseMask(XXX) into
>> the inverse version of Mask(XXX), which allocates a unique bit and defines
>> the same set of macros as Mask(XXX).  Does it look OK?
> I'd have thought that either Mask or InverseMask with a given mask name
> (or a standalone target mask record) should cause allocation (only once,
> no matter how many options use the same mask name), and MaskExists should
> be removed, rather than adding MaskNeeded - if I understood correctly the
> purpose for which you are adding MaskNeeded.

That is correct.  I will work on a patch to remove  MaskExists.



Reply via email to