[PATCH] Driver: bifurcate extended and basic MSC versioning

[Alp Toker]

On 01/07/2014 22:40, Aaron Ballman wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 1, 2014 at 3:15 PM, Alp Toker <alp at nuanti.com> wrote:
>> On 01/07/2014 21:53, Aaron Ballman wrote:
>>>> +1 for -fmsc-full-version.
>>> What about -fmsc-extended-version?
>>>
>>> I ask because Saleem pointed out in IRC that this really isn't the
>>> full version (it doesn't include the build number).
>>
>> It's only a temporary bug that the build number is ignored, and that'll will
>> go away as soon as we add a second variable or more bits to LangOpts.
> I apologize, I wasn't entirely clear with my complaint. Okay, in
> reality, I was pretty obtuse. :-) It's that it is optionally full
> information (it doesn't require the full information to be present).
> Eg) -fmsc-full-version=17
>
>> The input really is the MSC full version so -fmsc-full-version is the
>> sensible name. Let's not invent new terminology like "extended version"
>> here.
> There are zero options with "full" in their name. There are two-ish
> options with "extended" in their name (fextended-identifiers and
> fno-extended-identifiers), but they don't really qualify as examples
> for this discussion. So both of these choices would qualify as
> "inventing new terminology."
>
> The goal is to discuss what qualifies as a "sensible" name, and I have
> some (relatively weak, but valid) objections to using "full" because
> it implies you are required to specify the full version information
> when that isn't the case.

Oh, I see what you were getting at now.

I *do* think that's a valid point given that we accept less than the 
full version to be written, but in principle we expect people/tools to 
pass a verbatim and long dotted version here with shorter forms accepted 
just "because we can".

And that's weighed up against the stronger argument that this gets 
converted to an _MSC_FULL_VER, and that the documentation calls it the 
full version. So there's a really neat self-documenting property to 
-msc-full-version

As for -msc-extended-version, the version we accept isn't really an 
extension, not is it an extended form of anything, given that it can (a) 
be short as you pointed out yourself and (b) -msc-version is crummy and 
due for deprecation, so we don't want to express the nice new flag as an 
extended form of something that's going away and irrelevant to new users.

For those reasons I'm getting good vibes about -msc-full-version

Alp.


>
> ~Aaron

-- 
http://www.nuanti.com
the browser experts