cmake (which I'm not responsible for; I'm just trying to build it) has a facility to try to work out whether compiler options are valid, and apparently looks for "unrecognized option" on stderr. I'm not exactly a fan of matching human-readable error output like this, but this spec line currently has the side-effect of validating all switches, and I don't think that can possibly be its intent.
This is a reduced test case from a cmake test failure manifesting on Ubuntu ARM (https:/ /bugs.launchpad .net/bugs/ 887377):
$ gcc -v LTO_WRAPPER= /usr/lib/ gcc/i686- linux-gnu/ 4.6/lto- wrapper pkgversion= 'Ubuntu/ Linaro 4.6.2-2ubuntu1' --with- bugurl= file:// /usr/share/ doc/gcc- 4.6/README. Bugs --enable- languages= c,c++,fortran, objc,obj- c++,go --prefix=/usr --program- suffix= -4.6 --enable-shared --enable- linker- build-id --with-system-zlib --libexecdir= /usr/lib --without- included- gettext --enable- threads= posix --with- gxx-include- dir=/usr/ include/ c++/4.6 --libdir=/usr/lib --enable-nls --with-sysroot=/ --enable- clocale= gnu --enable- libstdcxx- debug --enable- libstdcxx- time=yes --enable-plugin --enable-objc-gc --enable- targets= all --disable-werror --with-arch-32=i686 --with-tune=generic --enable- checking= release --build= i686-linux- gnu --host= i686-linux- gnu --target= i686-linux- gnu generic- *:-march= %*; :%{mcpu=*:-mcpu=%*} %{march= *:-march= %*}}
Using built-in specs.
COLLECT_GCC=gcc
COLLECT_
Target: i686-linux-gnu
Configured with: ../src/configure -v --with-
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.6.2 (Ubuntu/Linaro 4.6.2-2ubuntu1)
$ cat specs
*asm_cpu_spec:
%{mcpu=
$ gcc -specs=specs ---
gcc: fatal error: no input files
compilation terminated.
$ gcc ---
gcc: error: unrecognized option ‘---’
gcc: fatal error: no input files
compilation terminated.
cmake (which I'm not responsible for; I'm just trying to build it) has a facility to try to work out whether compiler options are valid, and apparently looks for "unrecognized option" on stderr. I'm not exactly a fan of matching human-readable error output like this, but this spec line currently has the side-effect of validating all switches, and I don't think that can possibly be its intent.
This spec line was added in this commit:
http:// gcc.gnu. org/viewcvs? view=revision& revision= 178731
I think the `validate_switches' function should only mark matching switches as valid if `len' is non-zero.