On 10/25/13 10:26, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
On Fri, 25 Oct 2013, Richard Biener wrote:
Ok with preserving options as dummy, see examples like
fargument-alias
Common Ignore
Does nothing. Preserved for backward compatibility.
I don't think we should sorry (), but we can certainly warn that
mudfla
On Fri, 25 Oct 2013, Richard Biener wrote:
> Ok with preserving options as dummy, see examples like
>
> fargument-alias
> Common Ignore
> Does nothing. Preserved for backward compatibility.
>
> I don't think we should sorry (), but we can certainly warn that
> mudflap was replaced by -fsanitize=
On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 10:35 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 10/24/13 07:40, Richard Biener wrote:
we were supposed to remove mudflap for 4.9, no?
>>> Really? I guess it hasn't been removed yet since the include is still
>>> there? who is doing that?
>>
>>
>> Yeah, nobody has done
On 10/24/13 15:53, Marek Polacek wrote:
On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 03:22:42PM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
On 10/24/13 14:56, Steven Bosscher wrote:
Bootstrapped and regression tested on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu. Obviously
the mudflap specific tests were deleted and not run and were manually
ignored whe
On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 03:22:42PM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 10/24/13 14:56, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> >>Bootstrapped and regression tested on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu. Obviously
> >>the mudflap specific tests were deleted and not run and were manually
> >>ignored when comparing testsuite runs.
>
On 10/24/13 14:56, Steven Bosscher wrote:
Bootstrapped and regression tested on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu. Obviously
the mudflap specific tests were deleted and not run and were manually
ignored when comparing testsuite runs.
OK for the trunk?
The flags in c.opt should be retained as NOPs. Or
On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 10:35 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 10/24/13 07:40, Richard Biener wrote:
we were supposed to remove mudflap for 4.9, no?
>>> Really? I guess it hasn't been removed yet since the include is still
>>> there? who is doing that?
>>
>>
>> Yeah, nobody has done i
