This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [patch,fortran] Fix PR19310 unnecessary error for overflowing results
Paul Brook wrote:
On Friday 09 June 2006 18:19, Steve Kargl wrote:Well, maybe we should clarify the policy here. I think that the only reason we
need a negative form is in the case where a behavior is invoked by another flag
that enables or disables more than one feature and you only want part of that
On Fri, Jun 09, 2006 at 06:01:31PM +0100, Paul Brook wrote:
On Friday 09 June 2006 06:47, Jerry DeLisle wrote:
+ Fortran RejectNegative
+ Disable range checking during compilation
Why no- and RejectNegative? Seem like this should be a normal option that
accepts both forms (enabled by default).
Because range checking of gfortran's constant folding is the
standard, everyday, setup for gfortran. -fno-range-check
disables this range checking. It is not set/unset by any other
option (e.g., -Wall or -std=f95), so you don't need to be
able to toggle range checking back on. -fno-range-check
describes exactly what the option does. If you prefer,
it could be -fdisable-range-check.
I don't buy that argument. The same is true for several of the other -f
options (eg. -fbackslash) and we accept both forms of those.
So we only need to turn off a feature if we need to over-ride some other
invocation that invokes it.
In the case of -fno-range-check (or whatever you call it) the feature is
mutually exclusive from other compiler directives and so the negative form is
This may be true for other cases where we have not RejectNegative and we ought
to likewise set those RejectNegative.
Therefore, I think we ought to have the RejectNegative in this case and I should
go back and add in for the other flags that are of this nature.
Paul, do you agree? Steve?