LGTM, thanks :)
On Tue, Feb 8, 2022 at 12:30 PM Palmer Dabbelt <pal...@rivosinc.com> wrote: > > The polarity of do/do not was reversed for this option when compored to > the rest of them. This seems to have been copied from PowerPC, when the > polarity of the arguments in the docs was reversed (presumably to match > the default), but appears to have never made sense on RISC-V. > > gcc/ChangeLog > > * doc/invoke.texi (RISC-V -mstrict-align): Re-word the do/do not > language. > > Signed-off-by: Palmer Dabbelt <pal...@rivosinc.com> > --- > gcc/doc/invoke.texi | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/gcc/doc/invoke.texi b/gcc/doc/invoke.texi > index 0ebe538ccdc..5e8af05e359 100644 > --- a/gcc/doc/invoke.texi > +++ b/gcc/doc/invoke.texi > @@ -27702,7 +27702,7 @@ integer load/stores only. > @item -mstrict-align > @itemx -mno-strict-align > @opindex mstrict-align > -Do not or do generate unaligned memory accesses. The default is set > depending > +Do or do not generate unaligned memory accesses. The default is set > depending > on whether the processor we are optimizing for supports fast unaligned access > or not. > > -- > 2.34.1 >
