On 10 November 2006 07:34, Brooks Moses wrote:
> The Fortran front end currently has a lang.opt entry of the following form:
>
>ffixed-line-length-
>Fortran RejectNegative Joined UInteger
>
> I would like to add to this the following option which differs in the
> last character, but shou
Dave Korn wrote:
> It may seem a bit radical, but is there any reason not to modify the
> option-parsing machinery so that either '-' or '=' are treated interchangeably
> for /all/ options with joined arguments? That is, whichever is specified in
> the .opt file, the parser accepts either?
I
On 10 November 2006 20:06, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> Dave Korn wrote:
>
>> It may seem a bit radical, but is there any reason not to modify the
>> option-parsing machinery so that either '-' or '=' are treated
>> interchangeably for /all/ options with joined arguments? That is,
>> whichever is sp
Dave Korn wrote:
> On 10 November 2006 20:06, Mark Mitchell wrote:
>
>> Dave Korn wrote:
>>
>>> It may seem a bit radical, but is there any reason not to modify the
>>> option-parsing machinery so that either '-' or '=' are treated
>>> interchangeably for /all/ options with joined arguments? Th
Dave Korn wrote:
On 10 November 2006 20:06, Mark Mitchell wrote:
Dave Korn wrote:
It may seem a bit radical, but is there any reason not to modify the
option-parsing machinery so that either '-' or '=' are treated
interchangeably for /all/ options with joined arguments? That is,
whichever is
On 10 November 2006 21:18, Brooks Moses wrote:
> Dave Korn wrote:
> But that's already not possible -- that's essentially how I got into
> this problem in the first place. If one tries to define both of those,
> the declaration of the enumeration-type holding the option flags breaks,
> so you ca
Dave Korn wrote:
On 10 November 2006 21:18, Brooks Moses wrote:
But that's already not possible -- that's essentially how I got into
this problem in the first place. If one tries to define both of those,
the declaration of the enumeration-type holding the option flags breaks,
so you can't do th
On 11 November 2006 00:14, Brooks Moses wrote:
> Dave Korn wrote:
>> On 10 November 2006 21:18, Brooks Moses wrote:
>> I think that for this one case we should just say that you have to supply
>> both forms -ffixed-line-length-none and -ffixed-line-length=none.
>
> Which I would be glad to do,
Brooks Moses <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Anyhow, if I try this, I get the following error (trimmed slightly for
> clarity):
>
>gcc -c [...] ../../svn-source/gcc/genconstants.c
>In file included from tm.h:7,
> from ../../svn-source/gcc/genconstants.c:32:
>options.h
