http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53072
--- Comment #6 from Manuel López-Ibáñez <manu at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-04-28 00:17:33 UTC --- (In reply to comment #5) > > It may be possible - you'd need to avoid implicit setting marking the > implied option as "set" - and I don't think delaying processing of Init() > will actually be helpful anyway. Then, I don't understand what is your plan. The current hack uses Init(-1) and checks if warn_whatever == -1 as late as possible before setting the real default value. My idea was to mimic this, but using the "set" structure instead of -1, and using the Init value as the default value. A strategy to implement this could be to introduce a new Default(), which will be set unconditionally if the option is "unset". This will allow to get rid of Init(-1) incrementally.
