Re: AW: Wonly-top-basic-asm

[David Wohlferd <dw at LimeGreenSocks dot com>]

On 2/12/2016 5:03 PM, Sandra Loosemore wrote:
> On 02/12/2016 05:51 AM, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
> > On 02/12/2016 08:05 AM, David Wohlferd wrote:
> > > Actually, it was my intent that this apply to v6.  It's not like there
> > > is a significant change here.  We're documenting long-time behavior, 
> > > and
> > > adding a (disabled) warning.
> >
> > The doc patch (minus mentioning the warning) could go in now, but for
> > gcc-6 we're at a stage where we're only accepting regression fixes with
> > very few exceptions. If you can convince a RM that this is important
> > enough then it could still go in.
>
> I looked at the last version of the patch I saw and this is my 
> conclusion as well.  If you would like me to commit just the doc 
> change (minus the references to the new warning) now, please split the 
> patch and I will do that.  But, I cannot commit the change to add the 
> new warning during Stage 4 without approval from a RM.

Fair enough.  Committing what we can right now sounds like a good plan.

Bernd and I have both posted alternate text to what was in the last 
patch (see https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-02/msg00861.html).  
He proposed (and I agreed) that having you make the call about which was 
better might be reasonable way to finalize this.

If you want to pick one, I'll remove the Wbasic-asm and turn it into a 
doc-only patch.  Or maybe you'd rather scrap them both and propose your own?

I'm flexible here.  There are important concepts that need to be 
conveyed.  Doesn't much matter to me who writes them.

dw