Re: Recent patch to pass through unrecognized options in CVS HEAD

[Albert Chin]

On Tue, Sep 14, 2004 at 01:29:31PM +0100, Gary V. Vaughan wrote:
> Albert Chin wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 14, 2004 at 11:55:20AM +0100, Gary V. Vaughan wrote:
> >>Maybe we could mandate that option arguments to be passed through
> >>libtool have to be mangled?  So we'd accept, say, -Woff=all and
> >>unmangle it before calling the compiler...
> > 
> > We shouldn't force the users to change their behavior though.
> 
> Okay.  We can do both: libtool will keep a list of options it knows
> about (along with details of whether they accept arguments), and pass
> them through unchanged.  As an interrim for users that want to get
> options with arguments to the compiler with current libtool, they can
> use a mangled format that will nag them to report their mangling usage
> to bug-libtool for correction in the next release, but pass the unmangled
> option to the compiler.  Hopefully, the list of argument bearing options
> that libtool needs to know about is reasonably small and slow changing.
> 
> I am keen to come up with a low maintenance framework for tracking
> these optioned arguments so that adding new ones is a snap.  Searching
> for the right case...esac and adding a new block is a PITA.

So you're saying we should not revert the patch? I think that's the
most maintainable solution. Libtool has lived without the patch for
this long. Adding a case statement to pass through known options will
solve the problem of passing through 64-bit flags which should get us
better behavior than before. Nirvana, passing through all unknown
options, seems impossible.

-- 
albert chin (address@hidden)