[Bug other/28322] GCC new warnings and compatibility
--- Comment #27 from pmaydell at chiark dot greenend dot org dot uk 2009-12-29 16:18 --- >only when no other warning is present, the warning about the unrecognized >option vanishes: Um, that is the correct behaviour as described and implemented in this bug, isn't it? -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28322
[Bug other/28322] GCC new warnings and compatibility
--- Comment #25 from pmaydell at chiark dot greenend dot org dot uk 2009-02-12 08:35 --- I guess we could use a patch to the docs explaining the new behaviour and the rationale. Code-wise I think we're done. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28322
[Bug target/16350] gcc only understands little endian ARM systems
--- Comment #22 from pmaydell at chiark dot greenend dot org dot uk
2008-07-04 13:18 ---
I notice that the latest patch attached to this bug report doesn't quite match
up with what was committed as per comment #15: this bit in
gcc/config/arm/linux-elf.h wasn't changed:
#undef MULTILIB_DEFAULTS
#define MULTILIB_DEFAULTS \
- { "marm", "mlittle-endian", "mhard-float", "mno-thumb-interwork" }
+ { "marm", TARGET_ENDIAN_OPTION, "mhard-float", "mno-thumb-interwork" }
I don't know if that was deliberate or not, but my guess based on the revision
log for the change is that it was accidental, since the log explicitly says
"use it for MULTILIB_DEFAULTS".
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16350
[Bug other/28322] GCC new warnings and compatibility
--- Comment #20 from pmaydell at chiark dot greenend dot org dot uk 2008-06-05 08:31 --- I wrote: >The deferred 'unrecognised -Wno*' output should only be a warning, not an >error. I suggested a patch that would correct this: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2008-06/msg00139.html -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28322
[Bug other/28322] GCC new warnings and compatibility
--- Comment #19 from pmaydell at chiark dot greenend dot org dot uk 2008-05-05 17:57 --- Bug 35961 does suggest that we didn't quite get this patch right, though: At top level: cc1: error: unrecognized command line option "-Wno-long-double" The deferred 'unrecognised -Wno*' output should only be a warning, not an error. (In particular, it shouldn't cause compilation to fail if it would otherwise have succeeded, which it looks as if it has done here.) -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28322
[Bug other/28322] GCC new warnings and compatibility
--- Comment #13 from pmaydell at chiark dot greenend dot org dot uk 2008-02-27 13:32 --- Thanks a lot for taking the time to write a patch for this. I do have one question: if I'm reading the patch correctly, this postpones warnings about unrecognised options not just for -Wno-* but also for -fno-* and -mno-*. Was that deliberate? -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28322
[Bug other/28322] GCC new warnings and compatibility
--- Comment #6 from pmaydell at chiark dot greenend dot org dot uk 2007-02-20 23:15 --- I think the point Ian was trying to make with (3) was simply that it doesn't matter whether you choose to implement the reports of unknown -Wno-* (ie (2)) using the existing warning mechanism or by just printing to stderr. So it isn't a separate thing that needs to be done. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28322
[Bug other/28322] GCC new warnings and compatibility
--- Comment #4 from pmaydell at chiark dot greenend dot org dot uk 2007-02-20 22:23 --- Manuel: thanks for volunteering to write a patch. I've just spoken with Joseph Myers (a friend of mine who does gcc development work), and his opinion was that this issue isn't a sufficiently major one for it to be worth trying to make a case on the mailing list beforehand. His recommendation was to submit a patch first. So I think you should feel free to write the patch. (Or I might do it if I find some free time, but that doesn't seem very likely at this point.) -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28322
