https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=126155

--- Comment #3 from Eric Botcazou <ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
> I could make an argument that the default should be as minimal as possible
> precisely to allow for its reuse in custom (extended) implementations, but I
> trust there's reasons for why it's done this way.

Certainly a valid argument, but probably not strong enough to justify breaking
backward compatibility at this point.

Reply via email to