On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 3:18 AM, Joerg Sonnenberger <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 02:52:55AM -0800, Chandler Carruth wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 2:10 AM, Dmitri Gribenko <[email protected] > >wrote: > > > > > On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 9:56 AM, Chandler Carruth < > [email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > I also think that it is ultimately a mistake to re-use the same > > > commandline > > > > syntax for remarks. While I'd rather re-use all the infrastructure, > I'd > > > > rather separate these into a different spelling eventually. > > > > > > +1. Our current logic around -W* flags is already complex enough (to > > > understand -- both for users and developers, to extend and to > > > maintain), and overloading the meaning of -W* for remarks will only > > > make it even more complex, and possibly confusing as well (it is well > > > established that -W* flags enable warnings). > > > > > > Ya know, -R* flags don't appear to be in use in the GCC commandline at > all. > > I'm liking the idea of taking over that capital letter for > remarks-related > > flags more. > > Please don't. It is a linker flag that has historically often been > passed without -Wl to gcc. GCC has rejected this flag since at least GCC 4.5, the oldest version I have lying around to test with. Clearly this syntax has long since gone away in GCC, and I think it is entirely reasonable for it to not work with Clang. We don't even come *close* to supporting all of the flags GCC accepts today, much less those it started rejecting over four years ago.
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
