On Thu, 21 Jul 2011, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > So > > gcc_checking_assert (save_decoded_options[j].canonical_option[0][0] == > '-'); > switch (save_decoded_options[j].canonical_option[0][1]) > > instead? The reason for checking the option text instead of code
Yes. > was just because there are hundreds of -W options etc. and I didn't want to > list them all and create a maintanance nightmare. Flags such as CL_WARNING and the various bit-fields in struct cl_option (bit-fields are preferred if --help doesn't need to care about a property of an option) could be used, but I don't think it would really be an improvement in this case. > If -no can't make it to cc1, I'll drop it. Is -fdump* checking that way > ok (with the orig_option_with_args_text -> canonical_option[0] change)? Yes, that seems reasonable. -- Joseph S. Myers jos...@codesourcery.com
