On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 03:14:29PM +0200, Martin Liška wrote:
> On 08/18/2018 12:24 AM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > Removing Init is *wrong* as far as I see; it changes things, anyway.
> > Could you not have done this as a separate patch?
>
> It's already in, but it should be fine. Note that I a
On 08/18/2018 12:24 AM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> Hi!
>
> On Thu, Aug 16, 2018 at 11:18:15AM +0200, Martin Liška wrote:
>> On 08/15/2018 06:38 PM, Joseph Myers wrote:
>>> On Wed, 15 Aug 2018, Martin Liška wrote:
>>>
Ok, so you have very similar opinion as Jakub. Thus I'm sending new
v
Hi!
On Thu, Aug 16, 2018 at 11:18:15AM +0200, Martin Liška wrote:
> On 08/15/2018 06:38 PM, Joseph Myers wrote:
> > On Wed, 15 Aug 2018, Martin Liška wrote:
> >
> >> Ok, so you have very similar opinion as Jakub. Thus I'm sending new
> >> version that preserves status quo, it only does:
> >
> >
On Thu, 16 Aug 2018, Martin Liška wrote:
> On 08/15/2018 06:38 PM, Joseph Myers wrote:
> > On Wed, 15 Aug 2018, Martin Liška wrote:
> >
> >> Ok, so you have very similar opinion as Jakub. Thus I'm sending new
> >> version that preserves status quo, it only does:
> >
> > This is removing RejectN
On 08/15/2018 06:38 PM, Joseph Myers wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Aug 2018, Martin Liška wrote:
>
>> Ok, so you have very similar opinion as Jakub. Thus I'm sending new
>> version that preserves status quo, it only does:
>
> This is removing RejectNegative from some Deprecated options. Won't that
> res
On Wed, 15 Aug 2018, Martin Liška wrote:
> Ok, so you have very similar opinion as Jakub. Thus I'm sending new
> version that preserves status quo, it only does:
This is removing RejectNegative from some Deprecated options. Won't that
result in the -fno-* variants of those options starting to
On 07/26/2018 11:19 PM, Joseph Myers wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Jul 2018, Martin Liška wrote:
>
>> I must admit that was my intention :) In my eyes it makes it more consistent
>> and
>> it gives consumers feedback about usage of an option that does nothing.
>> For x86_64 there's list of options that are
On Fri, 20 Jul 2018, Martin Liška wrote:
> +C++ ObjC++ Ignore)
Stray ')' at the end of this line.
--
Joseph S. Myers
jos...@codesourcery.com
On Thu, 19 Jul 2018, Martin Liška wrote:
> I must admit that was my intention :) In my eyes it makes it more consistent
> and
> it gives consumers feedback about usage of an option that does nothing.
> For x86_64 there's list of options that are Ignore and don't produce a
> warning:
The design
On 07/19/2018 04:21 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 04:16:10PM +0200, Martin Liška wrote:
>> I must admit that was my intention :) In my eyes it makes it more consistent
>> and
>> it gives consumers feedback about usage of an option that does nothing.
>> For x86_64 there's list
On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 04:16:10PM +0200, Martin Liška wrote:
> I must admit that was my intention :) In my eyes it makes it more consistent
> and
> it gives consumers feedback about usage of an option that does nothing.
> For x86_64 there's list of options that are Ignore and don't produce a
> w
On 07/19/2018 03:47 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 03:25:15PM +0200, Martin Liška wrote:
>> Few weeks ago I added new Deprecated flag for options. Apparently, there's
>> one similar called Ignore. Thus I moved all Deprecated to Ignore and for
>> all Ignored I do a warning of fol
On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 03:25:15PM +0200, Martin Liška wrote:
> Few weeks ago I added new Deprecated flag for options. Apparently, there's
> one similar called Ignore. Thus I moved all Deprecated to Ignore and for
> all Ignored I do a warning of following format:
>
> $ xgcc: warning: switch ‘-mmpx
13 matches
Mail list logo
