On Aug 4, 2003, Neil Booth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Alexandre Oliva wrote:- >> On Aug 3, 2003, Neil Booth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> > it would need to be -fpwd. >> >> Can you please explain to me why you think it makes more sense for the >> flag to be -fpwd than -Pwd?
> It supports the no- form, and doesn't require SPEC changes. But I think we *do* want spec changes. We want the cwd in the preprocessed output if we're going to output debugging info. I could arrange for the patch to not require spec changes as well, I just don't see a reason for that. Also, I don't think we want a negative form. I think this option is strongly tied to -P as well (if you pass -P, you don't get the working directory either), so -Pwd makes a lot of sense to me. > Being an -f switch doesn't mean it's not for CPP - just look at > c-opts.c for example. Agreed. Still, I think -Pwd fits in better. I could rearrange it such that it didn't require specs change, but think would be trickier if we supported a negative form. Or rather a positive form, since the code I have now is to omit the working directory, not to emit it, and we couldn't emit if -P given, so we'd have to detect this case and flag an error. -- Alexandre Oliva Enjoy Guarana', see http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ Red Hat GCC Developer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org} CS PhD student at IC-Unicamp [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org} Free Software Evangelist Professional serial bug killer __ distcc mailing list http://distcc.samba.org/ To unsubscribe or change options: http://lists.samba.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/distcc
