On 8/7/20 12:04 AM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
I think this makes a lot of sense.
Hello.
I also support the patch (as Segher, I can't approve it).
Martin
Hi!
On Fri, Aug 07, 2020 at 10:44:10AM +0800, Kewen.Lin wrote:
> > I think this makes a lot of sense.
> >
> >> btw, not sure whether it's a good idea to move target_option_override_hook
> >> call into print_specific_help and use one function local static
> >> variable to control it's called once
Hi Segher!
Thanks for the comments!
on 2020/8/7 上午6:04, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> Hi!
>
> On Thu, Aug 06, 2020 at 08:37:23PM +0800, Kewen.Lin wrote:
>> When I was working to update patch as Richard's review comments
>> here https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2020-August/551474.html，
>>
Hi!
On Thu, Aug 06, 2020 at 08:37:23PM +0800, Kewen.Lin wrote:
> When I was working to update patch as Richard's review comments
> here https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2020-August/551474.html，
> I noticed that the options "-Q --help=params" don't show the final values
> after target opti
Hi,
When I was working to update patch as Richard's review comments
here https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2020-August/551474.html，
I noticed that the options "-Q --help=params" don't show the final values
after target option overriding, instead it emits the default values in
params.opt (w
