Re: response file support in GCC

[Gary V. Vaughan]

Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> With response file support in GCC [1] we need to adjust Libtool
> accordingly.  Minimally to let the option through as below, but
> ideally we should probably parse its contents.

The spec says that the file must contain whitespace separated arguments,
so parsing should be a cinch.

Is the patch necessary?  Won't @foo be treated as a file name and passed
through to the compiler driver by libtool anyway?  Or do you need to
preserve relative argument order here?

> Any volunteers?  Comments?

After parsing we might want to change the arguments parsed from the file,
and presumably the file is used because the arguments are too long to pass
on the command line.  In that case, I suppose we might be able to cope
by using partial linking.

Since this is a gccism, and we'd like for libtool to present a portable
interface, I think that proper support for response files should be for
libtool to parse and interpret them, and rely on partial linking to help
us keep inside the command line length limits.  That way libtool users
get to use response files regardless of the underlying compiler.  In the
fullness of time, we might test for compiler response file support, and
have libtool write long command lines into its own response file instead
of using partial linking where possible.

Regardless, this all sounds like post-2.0 to me... can you add a TODO
item please?

Cheers,
        Gary.
--
Gary V. Vaughan      ())_.  address@hidden,gnu.org}
Research Scientist   ( '/   http://tkd.kicks-ass.net
GNU Hacker           / )=   http://www.gnu.org/software/libtool
Technical Author   `(_~)_   http://sources.redhat.com/autobook

signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature