On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 6:22 AM, Michal Marek <mma...@suse.com> wrote:
> Dne 28.11.2016 v 07:44 Peter Foley napsal(a):
> This adds new -Wno-* options also for the gcc case, is there a reason
> for this? Also, the -Wno-missing-field-initializers option is not
> available in some old gccs, so we would need a HOSTCC equivalent of
It appeared that the conditional was simply reversed, as
-fno-delete-null-pointer-checks is only supported by gcc, and
explicitly not supported by clang.
It could be that the fno-delete-null-pointer-checks option was simply
misplaced, and the Wno-options should still be guarded by if(clang),
would that be a better approach?