This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Suggestion for option
- To: "RenE J.V. Bertin" <rjvbertin at hotmail dot com>
- Subject: Re: Suggestion for option
- From: Nix <nix at esperi dot demon dot co dot uk>
- Date: 27 Jul 2001 20:39:33 +0100
- Cc: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- References: <LAW2-F94otSkrpEwwSm00009dfb@hotmail.com>
On Fri, 27 Jul 2001, RenE J. V. Bertin stated:
>>(And yes, I do know people who run compilers and stuff their output down
>
> What happens to those people when/if they use -fsyntax-only? :)
Er, when they do that they're *expecting* no output... :)
> I guess one can't guarantee anyway that an inproperly caused
> (output-related) otion won't wreak havoc downstream...
> So is it really a problem if an option like the one under discussion
> is not compatible with all potential ways people use the compiler?
That would be a problem, I think, were it not that this only kicks in if
there's been an error, in which case we're generating garbage anyway and
all diagnostics after that point are also suspect; so turning the garbage
into nothing at all, and possibly changing the diagnostics[1] will also
not be a change from the status quo, really.
[1] because of warnings errors emitted during RTL generation &c
--
`It's all about bossing computers around. Users have to say "please".
Programmers get to say "do what I want NOW or the hard disk gets it".'
-- Richard Heathfield on the nature of programming