From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Federico Beffa Subject: bug#25882: gcc-wrapper doesn't handle response files Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2017 18:16:50 +0100 Message-ID: <871suajpfh.fsf@lupo.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-tickle-me> References: <87o9xepe7l.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:42941) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ckwFw-0001H3-05 for bug-guix@gnu.org; Mon, 06 Mar 2017 12:17:09 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ckwFq-0002kA-AJ for bug-guix@gnu.org; Mon, 06 Mar 2017 12:17:08 -0500 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.43]:44838) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ckwFq-0002jw-6B for bug-guix@gnu.org; Mon, 06 Mar 2017 12:17:02 -0500 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1ckwFp-0000jJ-Tz for bug-guix@gnu.org; Mon, 06 Mar 2017 12:17:01 -0500 Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <87o9xepe7l.fsf@gnu.org> ("Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?="'s message of "Mon, 06 Mar 2017 17:22:38 +0100") List-Id: Bug reports for GNU Guix List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: bug-guix-bounces+gcggb-bug-guix=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: "bug-Guix" To: Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= Cc: 25882@debbugs.gnu.org ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Court=C3=A8s) writes: > Federico Beffa skribis: > >> gcc-wrapper doesn't handle compiler/linker flags passed through >> response files. >> >> One package which recently started using such files is GHC (I believe >> since 7.10.3). For this reason we currently need to patch it. >> However, the problem is with our tool chain wrapper and not with GHC >> itself. >> >> See discussion at >> https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/2017-01/msg01981.html > > Given that the GHC patch is so small, I have a slight preference for > keeping ld-wrapper unchanged and using the GHC patch. To put it > differently, the GHC patch is smaller and less error-prone than the > changes that would need to be made in ld-wrapper. I don't think that it is a good idea because any upstream change around that code will break our package again and, going forward, we may find other pieces of software making use of this gcc feature. The patch is small, but the effort to find it wasn't. I like to fix things where the problem is, not working around it. Fede