https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69840
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69840
--- Comment #5 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #4)
> Then we have to agree that this code breaks GNU output style. Or it breaks
> LLVM output style. It is one or the other, I rather see a way to do this
> dynamical
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69840
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
Then we have to agree that this code breaks GNU output style. Or it breaks
LLVM output style. It is one or the other, I rather see a way to do this
dynamically of breaking up the lines (this was done in the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69840
--- Comment #3 from Kostya Serebryany ---
You don't :)
The agreement between the teams was that the code in gcc is a verbatim copy of
upstream. (Well, there was a single-line difference at some point)
If you break this assumption, the next merge
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69840
--- Comment #2 from Martin Liška ---
Well, it looks llvm folk are not convinced about the behavior:
http://reviews.llvm.org/D17566
Do we want to do it in the GCC anyway or not?
Martin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69840
--- Comment #1 from Martin Liška ---
Created attachment 37741
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37741&action=edit
Patch draft
I've tried to sketch-up a simple patch that can do that.
As the original source of the modified code
