r189542. cheers, --renato
On 28 August 2013 20:44, Jeroen Hofstee <[email protected]> wrote: > On 08/28/2013 09:33 PM, Jeroen Hofstee wrote: > > Hello Renato and others, > > On 08/27/2013 11:20 AM, Renato Golin wrote: > > On 27 August 2013 09:24, Dmitri Gribenko <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 1:11 AM, Renato Golin <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > 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. >> >> In my opinion, consistency is a pretty good reason. >> > > That's where the grey area is... Do we strive to be consistent with the > previous behaviour, or with other flags? > > The former, how it's implemented now, is that a "strict-align" flag > would taint the whole argument list, since there was no way to "un-taint". > The latter, would change how "strict-align" behaves, being more consistent > with other flags, but less consistent with its former self. > > Jeroen, do you have any input in this? Any special reason for not having > made like other dual flags? > > > No special reason, I must have been in a good mood I guess. > I would like it even more to throw an error at the user for passing > such inconsistent flags, with the question to make up his / her mind > and filter-out one of them. Or preferably not add them both in the > first place. > > Luckily we don't have to discuss that, for the simple fact gcc seems > to use the last flag and clang seems to follow accordingly. Patches > attached, intended to match that behaviour. > > > follow up: Updated the subject and removed personal comment from the test. > > Regards, > Jeroen > >
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
