--- Comment #3 from jyasskin at gmail dot com 2010-06-04 17:56 ---
Thanks for the prompt answers. I understand that you've picked the right
direction for gcc as a whole, even though it'll inconvenience me temporarily.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44244
--- Comment #2 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-04 15:50 ---
I am going to close this as WONTFIX for the following reasons:
* We do not want this because:
a) We have too many options.
b) These options would be of very limited and temporary use but we will have
to support the
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-22 19:05 ---
I don't think this is a good idea as it means we have to support these options
forever.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44244
