[Bug driver/48524] spec language does not cover switches with separated form

2015-09-20 Thread manu at gcc dot gnu.org 
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48524

Manuel López-Ibáñez  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org

--- Comment #9 from Manuel López-Ibáñez  ---
Is this fixed? Can we close it?

[Bug driver/48524] spec language does not cover switches with separated form

2015-09-20 Thread rhill at gentoo dot org 
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48524

Ryan Hill  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
 Resolution|--- |FIXED

--- Comment #10 from Ryan Hill  ---
As far as we're concerned it is.

[Bug driver/48524] spec language does not cover switches with separated form

2012-02-08 Thread jsm28 at gcc dot gnu.org 
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48524

--- Comment #8 from Joseph S. Myers jsm28 at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-02-08 
21:37:57 UTC ---
Author: jsm28
Date: Wed Feb  8 21:37:50 2012
New Revision: 184022

URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=184022
Log:
2012-02-08  Magnus Granberg  zo...@gentoo.org

PR driver/48524
* gcc.c (switch_matches) Support switches with separated form, -D
and -U.

testsuite:
* gcc.dg/pr48524.c: New test.
* gcc.dg/pr48524.spec: New spec file for test.

Added:
trunk/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr48524.c
trunk/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr48524.spec
Modified:
trunk/gcc/ChangeLog
trunk/gcc/gcc.c
trunk/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog

[Bug driver/48524] spec language does not cover switches with separated form

2011-12-18 Thread zorry at gentoo dot org 
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48524

Magnus Granberg zorry at gentoo dot org changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Attachment #26124|0   |1
is obsolete||

--- Comment #7 from Magnus Granberg zorry at gentoo dot org 2011-12-18 
20:11:32 UTC ---
Created attachment 26128
  -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26128
switches with separated form -D and -U

Same patch but with a testcase.
Tested on Gentoo with snapshot 4.7-20111217

[Bug driver/48524] spec language does not cover switches with separated form

2011-12-17 Thread zorry at gentoo dot org 
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48524

--- Comment #5 from Magnus Granberg zorry at gentoo dot org 2011-12-17 
20:30:17 UTC ---
Created attachment 26122
  -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26122
switches with separated form -D and -U

This patch make the -D and -U switches with separated form work in the spec
language. Tested on Gentoo with the spec as in comment 2.

[Bug driver/48524] spec language does not cover switches with separated form

2011-12-17 Thread zorry at gentoo dot org 
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48524

Magnus Granberg zorry at gentoo dot org changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Attachment #26122|0   |1
is obsolete||

--- Comment #6 from Magnus Granberg zorry at gentoo dot org 2011-12-17 
21:13:58 UTC ---
Created attachment 26124
  -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26124
switches with separated form -D and -U

fix typos in the last patch

[Bug driver/48524] spec language does not cover switches with separated form

2011-04-12 Thread dirtyepic at gentoo dot org 
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48524

Ryan Hill dirtyepic at gentoo dot org changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Severity|normal  |enhancement

[Bug driver/48524] spec language does not cover switches with separated form

2011-04-11 Thread vapier at gentoo dot org 
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48524

Mike Frysinger vapier at gentoo dot org changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||toolchain at gentoo dot org

--- Comment #4 from Mike Frysinger vapier at gentoo dot org 2011-04-12 
02:22:12 UTC ---
a few test cases would cover that aspect i'd think

[Bug driver/48524] spec language does not cover switches with separated form

2011-04-09 Thread joseph at codesourcery dot com 
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48524

--- Comment #1 from joseph at codesourcery dot com joseph at codesourcery dot 
com 2011-04-09 11:28:33 UTC ---
Specs are an internal GCC implementation detail, subject to change 
whenever convenient for implementation purposes.  (Whoever put 
documentation for them in invoke.texi was wrong to do so - and as far as I 
know, did not have FSF permission either for copying text from gcc.c under 
one license to invoke.texi under another - the comment starting Specs are 
strings containing lines is the proper documentation for specs.)  My 
recommendation in 
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-02/msg01486.html for certain 
broken -D specs in GCC was that any required semantics should be moved 
into cc1.  We have for a long time been moving away from defining built-in 
macros in specs, towards defining them based on actual logical state 
derived from option processing.  In any case if you wish to submit a patch 
for some new specs feature I would suggest you include the 
--enable-fortify-source=2 or similar configure option with it to provide 
some actual use for that feature in GCC.  Note that the spec you give 
appears wrong in that any -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE or -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=value 
option passed by the user should presumably also disable a default 
-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 option; maybe you actually want an 
if-macro-not-defined spec function that covers all these cases.

[Bug driver/48524] spec language does not cover switches with separated form

2011-04-09 Thread dirtyepic at gentoo dot org 
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48524

--- Comment #2 from Ryan Hill dirtyepic at gentoo dot org 2011-04-09 18:51:20 
UTC ---
Sorry, i just wanted a trivial example.  The actual rule we use is 

%{!D_FORTIFY_SOURCE:%{!D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=*:%{!U_FORTIFY_SOURCE:-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2}}}

but this is just one example of several.  The reason we use specs instead of
just changing the default is so we can easily bypass them at runtime.  This
allows us, for example, to have a single compiler for both normal and hardened
profiles.

I understand what you're saying, but it still seems like an omission to me to
not have a way to match switches with separate arguments.  Surely this isn't
the only case where this is useful?

[Bug driver/48524] spec language does not cover switches with separated form

2011-04-09 Thread joseph at codesourcery dot com 
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48524

--- Comment #3 from joseph at codesourcery dot com joseph at codesourcery dot 
com 2011-04-10 00:27:28 UTC ---
On Sat, 9 Apr 2011, dirtyepic at gentoo dot org wrote:

 Sorry, i just wanted a trivial example.  The actual rule we use is 
 
 %{!D_FORTIFY_SOURCE:%{!D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=*:%{!U_FORTIFY_SOURCE:-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2}}}
 
 but this is just one example of several.  The reason we use specs instead of
 just changing the default is so we can easily bypass them at runtime.  This
 allows us, for example, to have a single compiler for both normal and hardened
 profiles.
 
 I understand what you're saying, but it still seems like an omission to me to
 not have a way to match switches with separate arguments.  Surely this isn't
 the only case where this is useful?

The same principle applies that if you wish to submit a patch to add such 
a feature it is desirable to have a (properly functional) use case in FSF 
GCC, as code with no such use case is liable to be removed in cleanups.