On Tue, 29 Mar 2022, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
> | --- gcc/c-family/c.opt
> | +++ gcc/c-family/c.opt
> | [...]
> | Warray-bounds
> | -LangEnabledBy(C ObjC C++ LTO ObjC++,Wall)
> | +LangEnabledBy(C ObjC C++ LTO ObjC++)
> | ; in common.opt
> |
> | Warray-bounds=
>
> OK to push the attached
Hi!
On 2018-07-20T15:22:23-0600, Martin Sebor wrote:
> As the last observation in PR 82063 Jim points out that
>
>Both -Warray-bounds and -Warray-bounds= are listed in the c.opt
>file as being enabled by -Wall, but they are the same option,
>and it causes this one option to be
On 07/24/2018 01:48 PM, Franz Sirl wrote:
Am 2018-07-24 um 17:35 schrieb Martin Sebor:
On 07/24/2018 03:24 AM, Franz Sirl wrote:
Am 2018-07-20 um 23:22 schrieb Martin Sebor:
As the last observation in PR 82063 Jim points out that
Both -Warray-bounds and -Warray-bounds= are listed in the
Am 2018-07-24 um 17:35 schrieb Martin Sebor:
On 07/24/2018 03:24 AM, Franz Sirl wrote:
Am 2018-07-20 um 23:22 schrieb Martin Sebor:
As the last observation in PR 82063 Jim points out that
Both -Warray-bounds and -Warray-bounds= are listed in the c.opt
file as being enabled by -Wall, but
On 07/24/2018 03:24 AM, Franz Sirl wrote:
Am 2018-07-20 um 23:22 schrieb Martin Sebor:
As the last observation in PR 82063 Jim points out that
Both -Warray-bounds and -Warray-bounds= are listed in the c.opt
file as being enabled by -Wall, but they are the same option,
and it causes
Am 2018-07-20 um 23:22 schrieb Martin Sebor:
As the last observation in PR 82063 Jim points out that
Both -Warray-bounds and -Warray-bounds= are listed in the c.opt
file as being enabled by -Wall, but they are the same option,
and it causes this one option to be processed twice in the
As the last observation in PR 82063 Jim points out that
Both -Warray-bounds and -Warray-bounds= are listed in the c.opt
file as being enabled by -Wall, but they are the same option,
and it causes this one option to be processed twice in the
C_handle_option_auto function in the generated
