Hu Jiangping <hujiangp...@cn.fujitsu.com> writes: > Thanks, Richard! > > I think your suggestion is very good, so I made a new patch. > > v2: at a high level handles -falign-foo=0 like -falign-foo > v1: at the target level overides the -falign-foo=0 option values > > Obviously, v2 is better than v1. In addition, anthor option > to reject 0 that discussed in the email and PR96247 > is not as good as the current patch either, I think. > > I tested this patch on x86_64, it works well. OK for trunk?
In addition to Segher's comments, I wonder if it would be better to pass &opts->x_flag_align_foo and &opts->x_str_align_jumps to check_alignment_argument and do the check there instead. The condition for whether to do this would then be: align_result.length () == 1 && align_result[0] == 0 The reason for suggesting that is that it makes the parsing code more self-consistent, rather than using atoi for this case only. Looks good otherwise, thanks. Richard
