Re: Option ordering

[Ian Lance Taylor <iant at google dot com>]

Joe Buck <Joe.Buck@synopsys.COM> writes:

> How about: have -Wall still set warn_strict_overflow
> to 1, but to have -Wall -Wstrict-overflow *or* -Wstrict-overflow -Wall
> *or* just -Wstrict-overflow set it to 2?  The only change would be
> to prevent -Wall from *decreasing* the value.

Sure, makes sense.

But, consider:

    case OPT_Wall:
...
      warn_char_subscripts = value;
      warn_missing_braces = value;
      warn_parentheses = value;
      warn_return_type = value;
      warn_sequence_point = value;	/* Was C only.  */
...
      warn_switch = value;
...
      warn_address = value;
      warn_strict_overflow = value;

or

  if (optimize >= 2)
    {
      flag_thread_jumps = 1;
      flag_crossjumping = 1;
      flag_optimize_sibling_calls = 1;
      flag_forward_propagate = 1;
      flag_cse_follow_jumps = 1;
      flag_gcse = 1;
      flag_expensive_optimizations = 1;
      flag_ipa_type_escape = 1;
      flag_rerun_cse_after_loop = 1;
      flag_caller_saves = 1;
      flag_peephole2 = 1;
...

If we want to fix this issue, it seems to me we should fix it
everywhere.

Ian