Re: [PATCH] Canonical types (1/3)

[Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr at integrable-solutions dot net>]

"Doug Gregor" <doug.gregor@gmail.com> writes:

[...]

| > This is a very minor point, but I wonder if this flag should have a
| > different name.  As far as I know we don't currently have any -f flags
| > which are strictly for compiler developers.  We usually put those in
| > -d or --param.
| 
| I used "-f" partly because all of the good -d's were taken and partly
| because we might need to ask users to add -fcheck-canonical-types when
| reporting bugs that involve type equality problems.

This is compiler internal twisting that would disappear (hopefully)
soon, so I would prefer it to go with the --param band.  We have
already been asking users to twist --param in bug reports.

-- Gaby