I am not sure we have to first define command line arguments and only then
based on them define the file. It can easily be done the other way around:
first define the file and then, if required, define the command line
arguments accordingly.

I don't think we'll be ever able to define _all_ possible options for all
compilers, as there are specific options for specific vendors.

Therefore, I think the way to go is to define those common options in a
human readable format (aka keywords), and leave a space for vendor specific
definitions.

Rene,
Can you please share with me those options that you have, I'll try to see
if I can make it any sensible progress with it.


Ran.


On Tue, Nov 28, 2023, 15:18 René Ferdinand Rivera Morell <
grafikrobot_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 5:38 AM Ran Regev <regev.ran_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Rene,
> >
> > Maybe I am missing something completely, but my understanding of Command
> Line Portability section is that it allows the user to write a response
> file _once_ and use it with any tool.
> > My understanding is that the file and its structure is human readable
> and that each tool interprets it as it should.
> >
> > Following this logic, I would expect to see the options part specified
> precisely, giving tools the opportunity to implement the best they can.
> > e.g, instead of this:
> > { "options": [ "fPIC", { "O": "0" }, "fno-inline", { "W": [ "all",
> "error" ] }, "g", { "I": [ "util/include" ] }, "c" ] }
> >
> > I would love to see this:
> > { "options": [ { "position_independent_code": true }, { "optimization":
> "none" }, { "allow_inline", false }, { "warnings": [ "all", "error" ] }, {
> "debug" : true, { "includes": [ "util/include" ] }, {"compile" : true } ] }
> >
> > All keys are part of the standard and are reserved words.
>
> I would also love to see that. But, as far as I remember, the idea was
> to define such new words as part of the command line arguments item.
> And hence providing standard names both in the structured response
> file and in command line arguments. One drawback to specifying those
> option names now is that it will likely not be expansive enough by the
> time we release the EcoIS. Although perhaps it can be if we can
> quickly agree on common names. I already do have a large set of names
> to steal from in B2 which uses tool independent features.
>
> --
> -- René Ferdinand Rivera Morell
> -- Don't Assume Anything -- No Supone Nada
> -- Robot Dreams - http://robot-dreams.net
>