On 10/15/25 23:06, Richard Biener wrote:
By policy we never remove options but instead mark them as ignored. This also prrevents accidental reuse in the future with possibly different semantics.
OK, I can do that instead for this option, and any others I find that are clearly obsolete.
I have a related question, though. There are quite a number of -f options that take an argument but that don't have RejectNegative, for instance -fanalyzer-verbosity=. I was doing some experiments last evening and found that the driver passes -fno-analyzer-verbosity=0 through to cc1, but with any other argument gives cc1 the *positive* form of the option with that argument, e.g. -fno-analyzer-verbosity=4 is canonicalized to -fanalyzer-verbosity=4. I think this is not intentional behavior and is not useful to users. Is adding RejectNegative (or changing the options processing to assume it for all options that take an argument) also forbidden since it essentially removes (useless/confusing) options?
-Sandra
