Sergei Organov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I like the idea. I'd also suggest that group options won't do anything
> else but affecting [default values of] simple options. It means that one
> will be able to substitute a set of simple options for a "group option"
> without change in behavior (for
"Manuel López-Ibáñez" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 30 May 2007 16:12:12 -0700, Ian Lance Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Joe Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > How about: have -Wall still set warn_strict_overflow
>> > to 1, but to have -Wall -Wstrict-overflow *or* -Wstrict-overflow
On 31/05/07, Jakub Jelinek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Wed, May 30, 2007 at 09:23:34PM -0400, Diego Novillo wrote:
> On 5/30/07 7:07 PM, Joe Buck wrote:
>
> > How about: have -Wall still set warn_strict_overflow
> > to 1, but to have -Wall -Wstrict-overflow *or* -Wstrict-overflow -Wall
> > *or*
On Wed, May 30, 2007 at 09:23:34PM -0400, Diego Novillo wrote:
> On 5/30/07 7:07 PM, Joe Buck wrote:
>
> > How about: have -Wall still set warn_strict_overflow
> > to 1, but to have -Wall -Wstrict-overflow *or* -Wstrict-overflow -Wall
> > *or* just -Wstrict-overflow set it to 2? The only change w
On 5/30/07 7:07 PM, Joe Buck wrote:
> How about: have -Wall still set warn_strict_overflow
> to 1, but to have -Wall -Wstrict-overflow *or* -Wstrict-overflow -Wall
> *or* just -Wstrict-overflow set it to 2? The only change would be
> to prevent -Wall from *decreasing* the value.
Yes. My idea wa
On 30 May 2007 16:12:12 -0700, Ian Lance Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Joe Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> How about: have -Wall still set warn_strict_overflow
> to 1, but to have -Wall -Wstrict-overflow *or* -Wstrict-overflow -Wall
> *or* just -Wstrict-overflow set it to 2? The only cha
Joe Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> How about: have -Wall still set warn_strict_overflow
> to 1, but to have -Wall -Wstrict-overflow *or* -Wstrict-overflow -Wall
> *or* just -Wstrict-overflow set it to 2? The only change would be
> to prevent -Wall from *decreasing* the value.
Sure, makes sen
On Wed, May 30, 2007 at 03:48:05PM -0700, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/PR32102 is about the fact that -Wall
> -Wstrict-overflow is not the same as -Wstrict-overflow -Wall (i.e.,
> the order of the options matter). The reason is that -Wall sets
> warn_strict_overflow to 1 and -Wstri
http://gcc.gnu.org/PR32102 is about the fact that -Wall
-Wstrict-overflow is not the same as -Wstrict-overflow -Wall (i.e.,
the order of the options matter). The reason is that -Wall sets
warn_strict_overflow to 1 and -Wstrict-overflow sets
warn_strict_overflow to 2.
It is normal and expected tha
