target_flags

Zack Weinberg zack@codesourcery.com
Thu Apr 17 22:07:00 GMT 2003


DJ Delorie <dj@redhat.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



More information about the Gcc mailing list