http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53072
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53072
--- Comment #6 from Manuel López-Ibáñez 2012-04-28
00:17:33 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
>
> It may be possible - you'd need to avoid implicit setting marking the
> implied option as "set" - and I don't think delaying processing of Init()
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53072
--- Comment #5 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2012-04-24 15:09:34 UTC ---
On Tue, 24 Apr 2012, manu at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53072
>
> --- Comment #4 from Manuel López-Ibáñez 2012-04-24
> 14:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53072
--- Comment #4 from Manuel López-Ibáñez 2012-04-24
14:49:54 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
>
> Init() should I think ideally be just for the defaults (with _set
> replacing the present uses of -1 or 2 in Init to mean "not set").
Do you think
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53072
--- Comment #3 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2012-04-24 14:43:16 UTC ---
On Tue, 24 Apr 2012, manu at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> Say we have: A enables B enables C. Do we actually need to track that C was
> enabled by B or by A? Sorry I canno
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53072
--- Comment #2 from Manuel López-Ibáñez 2012-04-24
14:10:48 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> On Sun, 22 Apr 2012, manu at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> This is explicitly not a detailed design; anyone implementing it would
> need to flesh out the d
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53072
--- Comment #1 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2012-04-24 13:59:10 UTC ---
On Sun, 22 Apr 2012, manu at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> The infrastructure to detect whether options have been set explicitly seems to
> be there, but it is not clear ho
