On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 03:42:43PM -0700, Eric Christopher wrote: > On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 12:06 PM, Joerg Sonnenberger > <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 02:45:22PM -0700, Nick Lewycky wrote: > >> -minline-all-stringops: povray > > > > Which version of povray? > > I'd assume the one in testsuite. > > > What I have in pkgsrc includeds a test that the > > option works. Given that I haven't found a single user and that it won't > > work in all cases as expected, I would like to see it removed again. > > > > That's pretty problematic now that we're erroring on unsupported -m > options where we weren't before and changing all of the code in the > world to get rid of their unfortunate use of compiler options is a bit > extra for work. Basically I think this patch is only going back to the > previous behavior and should be fine. Now, I agree that deciding > whether or not we want to implement this and how we should is > important, but I don't know that this is worth holding up things for > since in the freestanding world you'll have an unresolved symbol at > link time and otherwise we error out on code that we would > successfully compile in the past?
There are various changes in clang that break building software all the time. Please, let's not try to create a GCC wrapper that is just dropping hundreds of random flags because one person in the past decided that it would be a good idea to fine tune compilation. -fexpensive-optimisations and -fstrength-reduce are at least somewhat wildly used. Both are bad enough understood that making them nops is harmless. From the large list I posted in the other thread, I don't think that holds for most of the other options and I don't think those are popular enough to justify it either. Joerg _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
