On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 4:57 PM, Joerg Sonnenberger <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 03:11:23PM -0700, Eric Christopher wrote: >> I'm sorry Joerg, you've got sufficient people disagreeing with you >> here and this is a fairly well established option in gcc that we're >> just getting compatibility with here. A warning would be both annoying >> for users and pointless. I'm going to go ahead and have the patch >> submitted. > > How is -z well established when it wasn't even documented? GCC passing > unknown flags to the linker is a misfeature. Warning about it is the > very least we should do. While it might be too late for -u, no new > option should be added to this list. That said, I would like to see a > sane use case for -u, independent of whether it should be warned about > or not. I tried to use it in the past and it didn't do the things I > expected from it. >
-z has been silently passed along to the linker as long as I can tell (r262) in gcc. At least as long the gcc.c file has existed. That it wasn't documented well, you can blame at least this patch: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ r262 | rms | 1992-01-31 21:15:32 -0800 (Fri, 31 Jan 1992) | 2 lines Initial revision ------------------------------------------------------------------------ At which point... I don't think it matters. It's been passed along roughly forever and I really don't think it's something we should care enough to warn about. -eric _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
