On Fri, Mar 20, 2020 at 01:16:42PM -0600, Martin Sebor wrote:
> On 3/20/20 11:46 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> > Martin Sebor writes:
> > > On 3/17/20 5:52 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> > > > Lewis Hyatt writes:
> > > > > On Mon, Mar 16, 2020 at 06:11:08PM +, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> > >
On 3/20/20 11:46 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
Martin Sebor writes:
On 3/17/20 5:52 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
Lewis Hyatt writes:
On Mon, Mar 16, 2020 at 06:11:08PM +, Richard Sandiford wrote:
Lewis Hyatt via Gcc-patches writes:
...
FWIW there are three other options currently affe
Martin Sebor writes:
> On 3/17/20 5:52 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>> Lewis Hyatt writes:
>>> On Mon, Mar 16, 2020 at 06:11:08PM +, Richard Sandiford wrote:
Lewis Hyatt via Gcc-patches writes:
>>> ...
> FWIW there are three other options currently affected by this change
> (-Wi
On 3/17/20 5:52 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
Lewis Hyatt writes:
On Mon, Mar 16, 2020 at 06:11:08PM +, Richard Sandiford wrote:
Lewis Hyatt via Gcc-patches writes:
...
FWIW there are three other options currently affected by this change
(-Wimplicit-fallthrough, -fcf-protection, and -fli
Lewis Hyatt writes:
> On Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 11:52:13AM +, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>> Lewis Hyatt writes:
>> > On Mon, Mar 16, 2020 at 06:11:08PM +, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>> >> Lewis Hyatt via Gcc-patches writes:
>> > ...
>> >> > FWIW there are three other options currently affected
On Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 11:52:13AM +, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> Lewis Hyatt writes:
> > On Mon, Mar 16, 2020 at 06:11:08PM +, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> >> Lewis Hyatt via Gcc-patches writes:
> > ...
> >> > FWIW there are three other options currently affected by this change
> >> > (-Wim
Lewis Hyatt writes:
> On Mon, Mar 16, 2020 at 06:11:08PM +, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>> Lewis Hyatt via Gcc-patches writes:
> ...
>> > FWIW there are three other options currently affected by this change
>> > (-Wimplicit-fallthrough, -fcf-protection, and -flive-patching). The change
>> > for
On Mon, Mar 16, 2020 at 6:11 PM Lewis Hyatt wrote:
> Regarding -Wmissing-format-attribute, that is an interesting case, it's the
> only
> instance in any *.opt that has an = sign in the Alias target. If I understand
> correctly, this one can't use the 3-argument form of Alias() because
> -Wno-mis
On Mon, Mar 16, 2020 at 06:11:08PM +, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> Lewis Hyatt via Gcc-patches writes:
...
> > FWIW there are three other options currently affected by this change
> > (-Wimplicit-fallthrough, -fcf-protection, and -flive-patching). The change
> > for
> > -Wimplicit-fallthrough I
Lewis Hyatt via Gcc-patches writes:
> Hello-
>
> Currently, if an option is both undocumented and an alias for a second option,
> the help text generated by gcc --help directs the reader to use the other
> option instead. This makes sense for deprecated options, but it seems this
> pattern is also
Hello-
Currently, if an option is both undocumented and an alias for a second option,
the help text generated by gcc --help directs the reader to use the other
option instead. This makes sense for deprecated options, but it seems this
pattern is also used for another case, namely when an option ex
11 matches
Mail list logo
