On Sat, 13 Oct 2012, Manuel L?pez-Ib??ez wrote: > OK. The attached patch implements this. Does the approach look ok? I > will write changelog and more comments if it seems reasonable. One
Without the comments explaining the semantics of the new functions and their parameters, I'm not going to attempt to reverse-engineer what the approach in question is intended to be and so whether it's reasonable or not. > 2) While fixing this, I was thinking: Why the difference between > Joined and Separate? Why not make every function that takes an > argument work with and without '=' and with separate argument. It > seems we could remove a lot of options this way. What I am proposing > is, instead of: I see no significant advantage to users in having all these different ways to pass options, and multiple disadvantages: * If you add yet more ways of passing options, then any future overhaul of option handling needs to preserve those in addition to all the others. The fewer ways there are, the fewer constraints on the implementation. * Options like this > aux-infoFILE /* we could accept this to be compatible with some > options like -B */ are liable to be a pain for anyone, seeing such an option, to work out what is the option name that they might search for to get more information, and what is the argument. * In general, if all users are using an option in the same form it's easier for them to tell that another person really is using the same option rather than something that might be different from the option they are used to. * This also may not work so well with JoinedOrMissing options. > Wstrict-aliasing2 Shades of the old -gdwarf2 that once meant "DWARF 1, debug level 2", not to be confused with -gdwarf-2. I don't think such cryptic forms should be encouraged. > Wstrict-aliasing 2 Ambiguous with the existing -Wstrict-aliasing option followed by a linker input file called 2. -- Joseph S. Myers jos...@codesourcery.com
