https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116947
--- Comment #6 from Sam James ---
Yes, quite:
if test x$enable_valgrind_annotations != xno \
|| test x$ac_valgrind_checking != x; then
Oops.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116947
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116947
--- Comment #4 from Sam James ---
(In reply to Mark Wielaard from comment #3)
> Does --enable-checking=valgrind imply --enable-valgrind-annotations ?
> If not I would enable --error-exitcode=99 only if
> --enable-valgrind-annotations is also giv
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116947
--- Comment #3 from Mark Wielaard ---
Does --enable-checking=valgrind imply --enable-valgrind-annotations ?
If not I would enable --error-exitcode=99 only if --enable-valgrind-annotations
is also given (to avoid erroring out on false positives).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116947
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #2 from Sam James ---
ht
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116947
--- Comment #1 from Sam James ---
I'm not sure if we actually want --exit-on-first-error=yes. It might be
annoying with --enable-checking=valgrind. I'll drop it from my patches unless
someone wants it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116947
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
