2011/2/8 Hans-Peter Nilsson <h...@bitrange.com>: > On Thu, 27 Jan 2011, Laurynas Biveinis wrote: >> Thus I propose to separate the two. To avoid introducing another >> --enable-checking option, let's move the annotations to the "misc" >> checking and also enable "misc" too if "valgrind" is requested. Both >> these options are disabled for releases, so no performance loss there. >> >> There are two drawbacks I can think of. First, if one wants Valgrind >> annotations but does not have the required headers, then the compiler >> will be built without them - silently (currently >> --enable-checking=valgrind fails if headers are not found). Second, >> the compiler binary will be built slightly different if "misc" is >> enabled depending on the presence or absence of those headers. I >> believe these are minor enough.
[...] > If people want your "misc" changes but failing without headers, > add "--enable-valgrind-annotations". I think this is a good idea. At gc-improv I will go with my original plan of moving annotations to misc and will add --enable-valgrind-annotations for hard error if headers not available. Thanks, -- Laurynas
