On Tue, Jul 1, 2014 at 3:15 PM, Alp Toker <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 01/07/2014 21:53, Aaron Ballman wrote: >>> >>> +1 for -fmsc-full-version. >> >> What about -fmsc-extended-version? >> >> I ask because Saleem pointed out in IRC that this really isn't the >> full version (it doesn't include the build number). > > > It's only a temporary bug that the build number is ignored, and that'll will > go away as soon as we add a second variable or more bits to LangOpts.
I apologize, I wasn't entirely clear with my complaint. Okay, in reality, I was pretty obtuse. :-) It's that it is optionally full information (it doesn't require the full information to be present). Eg) -fmsc-full-version=17 > The input really is the MSC full version so -fmsc-full-version is the > sensible name. Let's not invent new terminology like "extended version" > here. There are zero options with "full" in their name. There are two-ish options with "extended" in their name (fextended-identifiers and fno-extended-identifiers), but they don't really qualify as examples for this discussion. So both of these choices would qualify as "inventing new terminology." The goal is to discuss what qualifies as a "sensible" name, and I have some (relatively weak, but valid) objections to using "full" because it implies you are required to specify the full version information when that isn't the case. ~Aaron _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
