This is the mail archive of the gcc@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: Option ordering

From: Diego Novillo <dnovillo at google dot com>
To: Joe Buck <Joe dot Buck at synopsys dot COM>
Cc: Ian Lance Taylor <iant at google dot com>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Wed, 30 May 2007 21:23:34 -0400
Subject: Re: Option ordering
References: <m3646ax716.fsf@localhost.localdomain> <20070530230737.GG12027@synopsys.com>

On 5/30/07 7:07 PM, Joe Buck wrote:

> 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.

Yes.  My idea was along similar lines.  Given an umbrella option like
-Wall or -Ox, it should only set specific options iff those options are
not present in the command line.

That means that we have to have presence bits for each option.

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Option ordering
  - From: Jakub Jelinek

References:
- Option ordering
  - From: Ian Lance Taylor
- Re: Option ordering
  - From: Joe Buck

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]