On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 4:37 AM Martin Sebor wrote:
>
> Richard, please let me know if the patch is acceptable as is
> (with the RejectNegative property added). As I said, I realize
> it's not ideal, but neither is any of the alternatives we have
> discussed. They all involve trade- offs, and I
Richard, please let me know if the patch is acceptable as is
(with the RejectNegative property added). As I said, I realize
it's not ideal, but neither is any of the alternatives we have
discussed. They all involve trade- offs, and I think they would
all make the behavior of the options less
On 08/24/2018 03:36 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 12:35 AM Martin Sebor wrote:
On 08/23/2018 07:18 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Thu, Aug 23, 2018 at 12:20 AM Martin Sebor wrote:
On 08/20/2018 06:14 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 10:52 PM Martin
On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 12:35 AM Martin Sebor wrote:
>
> On 08/23/2018 07:18 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 23, 2018 at 12:20 AM Martin Sebor wrote:
> >>
> >> On 08/20/2018 06:14 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
> >>> On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 10:52 PM Martin Sebor wrote:
>
> On
On 08/23/2018 07:18 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Thu, Aug 23, 2018 at 12:20 AM Martin Sebor wrote:
On 08/20/2018 06:14 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 10:52 PM Martin Sebor wrote:
On 07/26/2018 08:58 AM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 07/26/2018 02:38 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Thu, Aug 23, 2018 at 12:20 AM Martin Sebor wrote:
>
> On 08/20/2018 06:14 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 10:52 PM Martin Sebor wrote:
> >>
> >> On 07/26/2018 08:58 AM, Martin Sebor wrote:
> >>> On 07/26/2018 02:38 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at
On 08/20/2018 06:14 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 10:52 PM Martin Sebor wrote:
On 07/26/2018 08:58 AM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 07/26/2018 02:38 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 5:54 PM Martin Sebor wrote:
On 07/25/2018 08:57 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 10:52 PM Martin Sebor wrote:
>
> On 07/26/2018 08:58 AM, Martin Sebor wrote:
> > On 07/26/2018 02:38 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
> >> On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 5:54 PM Martin Sebor wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On 07/25/2018 08:57 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at
On Wed, 1 Aug 2018, Martin Sebor wrote:
> Richard, do you have any further comments or suggestions or is
> the patch acceptable?
>
> I realize it's not ideal but I don't see how to achieve the ideal
> (understanding PTRDIFF_MAX) without deferring the processing of
> these options until the back
Richard, do you have any further comments or suggestions or is
the patch acceptable?
I realize it's not ideal but I don't see how to achieve the ideal
(understanding PTRDIFF_MAX) without deferring the processing of
these options until the back end has been initialized. It would
still mean
On 07/26/2018 08:58 AM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 07/26/2018 02:38 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 5:54 PM Martin Sebor wrote:
On 07/25/2018 08:57 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 08:54:13AM -0600, Martin Sebor wrote:
I don't mean for the special value to be
On 07/26/2018 02:38 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 5:54 PM Martin Sebor wrote:
On 07/25/2018 08:57 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 08:54:13AM -0600, Martin Sebor wrote:
I don't mean for the special value to be used except internally
for the defaults.
On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 5:54 PM Martin Sebor wrote:
>
> On 07/25/2018 08:57 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 08:54:13AM -0600, Martin Sebor wrote:
> >> I don't mean for the special value to be used except internally
> >> for the defaults. Otherwise, users wanting to override
On 07/25/2018 08:57 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 08:54:13AM -0600, Martin Sebor wrote:
I don't mean for the special value to be used except internally
for the defaults. Otherwise, users wanting to override the default
will choose a value other than it. I'm happy to
On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 08:54:13AM -0600, Martin Sebor wrote:
> I don't mean for the special value to be used except internally
> for the defaults. Otherwise, users wanting to override the default
> will choose a value other than it. I'm happy to document it in
> the .opt file for internal users
On 07/25/2018 02:34 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 4:07 AM Martin Sebor wrote:
The very large option argument enhancement committed last week
inadvertently introduced an assumption about the LP64 data model
that makes the -Wxxx-larger-than options have a different effect
at
On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 4:07 AM Martin Sebor wrote:
>
> The very large option argument enhancement committed last week
> inadvertently introduced an assumption about the LP64 data model
> that makes the -Wxxx-larger-than options have a different effect
> at their default documented setting of
The very large option argument enhancement committed last week
inadvertently introduced an assumption about the LP64 data model
that makes the -Wxxx-larger-than options have a different effect
at their default documented setting of PTRDIFF_MAX between ILP32
and LP64. As a result, the options are
18 matches
Mail list logo
