On Oct 6, 2022, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> I'd much rather we could use -fmultiflags, a far more elegant
> arrangement IMHO, so...
> Ping? https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2022-June/597419.html
>> for gcc/ChangeLog
>> * common.opt (fmultiflags): New.
>> * doc/invoke.texi: Document it
On Jun 28, 2022, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> Support multilib-aware target lib flags self-specs overriding
> This patch introduces -fmultiflags, short for multilib TFLAGS, as an
> option that does nothing by default, but that can be added to TFLAGS
> and mapped to useful options by driver self-spec
On Jun 3, 2022, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 1, 2022, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote:
>> -fmultiflags?
> That works for me. I favored -multiflags slightly, because the intended
> use is for it to stand for other -m flags, but --multiflags AKA
> -fmultiflags will do as well.
> Now, is there i
On Jun 1, 2022, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote:
> On Fri, 20 May 2022, Alexandre Oliva via Gcc-patches wrote:
>>
>> This patch introduces -multiflags, short for multilib TFLAGS, as an
>> option that does nothing by default, but that can be added to TFLAGS
>> and mapped to useful options by driver sel
On Fri, 20 May 2022, Alexandre Oliva via Gcc-patches wrote:
>
> This patch introduces -multiflags, short for multilib TFLAGS, as an
> option that does nothing by default, but that can be added to TFLAGS
> and mapped to useful options by driver self-specs.
>
> I realize -m is reserved for machine-sp
On May 20, 2022, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> Regstrapped on x86_64-linux-gnu. Ok to install?
Ping? https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2022-May/595356.html
> for gcc/ChangeLog
> * common.opt (multiflags): New.
> * doc/invoke.texi: Document it.
> * gcc.cc (driver_self_sp
This patch introduces -multiflags, short for multilib TFLAGS, as an
option that does nothing by default, but that can be added to TFLAGS
and mapped to useful options by driver self-specs.
I realize -m is reserved for machine-specific flags, which this option
sort-of isn't, but its intended use i
