Re: target_flags

[Zack Weinberg <zack at codesourcery dot com>]

DJ Delorie <dj at redhat dot com> writes:

>> My only concern is, I think calling the value field a "default value"
>> is confusing; it doesn't really act as a _default_, options with
>> non-NULL value field are fixed strings.  Or else I'm confused, in
>> which case something needs clarifying.
>
> Did you read the first new example?  That demonstrates why I called it
> a default - you can use the longer version to specify a value for the
> option, or the shorter one to use the value given in the table.  If
> you only look at it in the context of *one* option, it can be
> confusing.
>
> But I'm open to suggestions.  I don't care what it's called as long as
> the functionality is there.

I read the examples - that was the only way I was sure I understood
what the intended semantics were.

Could you please just say explicitly in the documentation that the reason
it's called a default value is because you can do something like this
with two entries in the table?  And then go ahead and check it in.

zw