On Mon, 2024-09-30 at 09:33 +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * David Malcolm:
>
> > I'm not quite sure what you mean by "non-error" and "non-
> > anchored".
>
> Sorry, I'm not familiar with the appropriate terminology.
>
> > By "non-error", do you mean that this should this be a warning? If
> >
* David Malcolm:
> I'm not quite sure what you mean by "non-error" and "non-anchored".
Sorry, I'm not familiar with the appropriate terminology.
> By "non-error", do you mean that this should this be a warning? If so,
> use warning_at. You can use 0 for the option_id whilst prototyping.
> Or
* Richard Biener:
>> + append (flags & SECTION_RELRO, "RELRO");
>> + append (flags & SECTION_EXCLUDE, "EXCLUDE");
>> + append (flags & SECTION_RETAIN, "RETAIN");
>> + append (flags & SECTION_LINK_ORDER, "LINK_ORDER");
>
> I'm not sure printing these internal flags is of help to the user.
Ther
On Sun, Sep 29, 2024 at 5:13 PM Florian Weimer wrote:
>
> Sometimes this is a user error, sometimes it is more of an ICE.
> In either case, more information about the conflict is helpful.
>
> I used to this to get a better idea about what is going on with
> PR116887. The original diagnostics look
On Sun, 2024-09-29 at 17:12 +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> Sometimes this is a user error, sometimes it is more of an ICE.
> In either case, more information about the conflict is helpful.
>
> I used to this to get a better idea about what is going on with
> PR116887. The original diagnostics loo
* Andrew Pinski:
>> + append (flags & SECTION_CODE, "CODE");
>
> I notice you capture result and it seems like you could also capture
> flags and change this to:
> append (SECTION_CODE, "CODE");
Thanks, I've made the change locally.
Florian
On Sun, Sep 29, 2024 at 8:13 AM Florian Weimer wrote:
>
> Sometimes this is a user error, sometimes it is more of an ICE.
> In either case, more information about the conflict is helpful.
>
> I used to this to get a better idea about what is going on with
> PR116887. The original diagnostics look
