> Am 16.10.2025 um 16:56 schrieb Sandra Loosemore <[email protected]>:
>
> 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?
We’ve added RejectNegative in the past IIRC, so that’s OK. For such options
there should be a separate fno-analyzer-verbosity (without =) aliasing one of
the positive options if that makes sense.
Richard
>
> -Sandra
