--- 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
--- 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
--- 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
--- 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
--- 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
--- 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
--- 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
--- 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
