On 2009-08-05 10:07:49 +0100, Dave Korn wrote: > GCC does not install an executable called "c99". Or one called > "c89". So what any standard requires of them is irrelevant to us, > except that we would want to make it possible to support that mode > of operation. And we do; with our predictable behaviour, all "c89" > has to do is sort the command-line options so all the -Ds come first > and all the -Us come last, and then invoke "gcc".
Recognizing options may depend on the GCC version. Or do GCC developers guaranty that no options that can take an argument will be added in the future? > I'm sure nobody will raise any objection to adding a command-line > flag if you want to integrate this behaviour into the driver. This would be better. -- Vincent Lefèvre <vinc...@vinc17.org> - Web: <http://www.vinc17.org/> 100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: <http://www.vinc17.org/blog/> Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / Arenaire project (LIP, ENS-Lyon)
