On 6 September 2016 at 12:41, Christophe Lyon
wrote:
> On 6 September 2016 at 12:12, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 06, 2016 at 12:07:47PM +0200, Christophe Lyon wrote:
>>> On 5 September 2016 at 19:20, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>>> > Hi!
>>> >
>>> > While it would be perhaps nice to pass explic
On 6 September 2016 at 12:12, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 06, 2016 at 12:07:47PM +0200, Christophe Lyon wrote:
>> On 5 September 2016 at 19:20, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>> > Hi!
>> >
>> > While it would be perhaps nice to pass explicit location_t in the target
>> > option handling code, there
On Tue, Sep 06, 2016 at 12:07:47PM +0200, Christophe Lyon wrote:
> On 5 September 2016 at 19:20, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > Hi!
> >
> > While it would be perhaps nice to pass explicit location_t in the target
> > option handling code, there are hundreds of error/warning/sorry calls
> > in lots of ba
On 5 September 2016 at 19:20, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> Hi!
>
> While it would be perhaps nice to pass explicit location_t in the target
> option handling code, there are hundreds of error/warning/sorry calls
> in lots of backends, and lots of those routines are used not just
> for the process_option
On September 5, 2016 7:20:57 PM GMT+02:00, Jakub Jelinek
wrote:
>Hi!
>
>While it would be perhaps nice to pass explicit location_t in the
>target
>option handling code, there are hundreds of error/warning/sorry calls
>in lots of backends, and lots of those routines are used not just
>for the proc
Hi!
While it would be perhaps nice to pass explicit location_t in the target
option handling code, there are hundreds of error/warning/sorry calls
in lots of backends, and lots of those routines are used not just
for the process_options time (i.e. command line options), but also for
pragma GCC tar
