On Aug 21, 2017, Richard Biener <richard.guent...@gmail.com> wrote: > +gno-statement-frontiers > +Common Driver RejectNegative Var(debug_nonbind_markers_p, 0) Init(2) > +Don't enforce progressive recommended breakpoint locations. > + > +gstatement-frontiers > +Common Driver RejectNegative Var(debug_nonbind_markers_p, 1) > +Emit progressive recommended breakpoint locations.
> others get away with a single flag and Init(-1). That is, > -gstatement-frontiers > should set it to 1 already and -gno- to 0. Why do you need the explicit > entry for gno-..? All debug options that support negation seem to have adopted this idiom; without it, the negated options end up misparsed as -g with an argument, and then set_debug_level complains that "no-..." is not a number. The logic of matching the longest option name prefix doesn't seem to work very well when options have a prefix that is also a valid option with a Joined(OrMissing) argument. The same problem applies to -O: -Ono-fast is not parsed as a negative of -Ofast, but as -O with no-fast as the argument, even though no RejectNegative flag is present under Ofast. -- Alexandre Oliva, freedom fighter http://FSFLA.org/~lxoliva/ You must be the change you wish to see in the world. -- Gandhi Be Free! -- http://FSFLA.org/ FSF Latin America board member Free Software Evangelist|Red Hat Brasil GNU Toolchain Engineer