On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 1:30 AM, Mark Wielaard <m...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 2016-09-14 at 00:00 -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
>> I wonder about spelling the options as
>> -Wshadow={local,compatible-local} rather than with a dash, but
>> otherwise the patch looks fine.
>
> That is a much nicer way to write the option. But if I do that I would
> like to keep the old names as aliases because Google already ships a gcc
> that accepts -Wshadow-local and -Wshadow-compatible-local and you can
> find programs that already probe for those names in their configure
> scripts. Can I make the existing names hidden aliases by marking them
> Undocumented in the .opt file? Or is that too contrived/ugly?I don't have any opinion as to what the option names should be, but I don't see the fact that Google's GCC has different option names as a concern. That GCC is only used within Google, and Google is moving to LLVM in any case. Changing the option names in GCC trunk is not a problem for anybody. Ian
