Re: Inserting new parameter in gcc

2007-11-09 Thread Manuel López-Ibáñez
Just to complete this discussion, the syntax of the *.opt files is (almost exactly) mapped by the gen-*.awk scripts into flags that are defined in the file gcc/opts.h. This file contains some comments about these flags: #define CL_PARAMS (1 << 18) /* Fake entry. Used to display --pa

Re: Inserting new parameter in gcc

2007-11-09 Thread Manuel López-Ibáñez
On 09/11/2007, Basile STARYNKEVITCH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote: > > > > RejectNegative is not intuitive? I really would like to hear your > > suggestion. Honestly, not sarcasm here. > > I agree with the original poster Juan Luis Liarte, RejectNegative, as a > marker for

Re: Inserting new parameter in gcc

2007-11-09 Thread Basile STARYNKEVITCH
Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote: On 09/11/2007, Juan Luis Liarte <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: (Strangely, I am subscribed to the gcc@gcc.gnu.org and did not get by email Juan Luis' first message but I read it on the web http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2007-11/msg00266.html) Hello to all, myparameter= C

Re: Inserting new parameter in gcc

2007-11-09 Thread Manuel López-Ibáñez
On 09/11/2007, Juan Luis Liarte <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hello to all, > > myparameter= > Common RejectNegative Joined > > It works, but I have been thinking on it, and maybe this way to insert > arguments is a little bit messy. For example, the keyword RejectNegative > is not very intuitive, a

Inserting new parameter in gcc

2007-11-09 Thread Juan Luis Liarte
Hello to all, I have been working on inserting a new string argument in gcc, which accepts a string from command line. It would be like gcc ... -fmyparameter=stringtoread ... In common.opt, I have had to insert a new parameter, and it has been something like myparameter= Common RejectNegati