On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 1:11 AM, Renato Golin <[email protected]>wrote:
> On 26 August 2013 21:06, Reid Kleckner <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Sat, Aug 24, 2013 at 7:44 AM, Renato Golin <[email protected]>wrote: >> >>> Since the default value for unaligned accesses / strict alignment >>> depends on the tripple, both the enable and disable flags are added. >>> If both are set, the no-unaligned-access is used. >>> >> >> Isn't the usual pattern that the last one wins? >> > > Hi Reid, > > This is a good point, but in this specific case, it's a bit of a grey area. > > Basically, what "no-unaligned-access" is saying is that exceptions will be > caught if there is any unaligned access, while "unaligned-access" is less > strict, only meaning that "AFAIK, no exceptions will be caught". So, if > someone building the command line option knows that exceptions will be > caught, we should err in the side of safety, and not rely on build systems > to get that right. > > That said, I agree it's a bit too much, and build systems should be able > to change the compilation parameters without re-writing the whole argument > list. But I'm not sure how safe that is. > > I don't have that strong an opinion to keep things as they are, but I also > wouldn't change unless there is a good reason (or consensus) to do so. > IMO we should match gcc's behavior here.
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
