> In addition to Segher's comments, I wonder if it would be better
> to pass &opts->x_flag_align_foo and &opts->x_str_align_jumps to
> check_alignment_argument and do the check there instead.
> The condition for whether to do this would then be:
>
> align_result.length () == 1 && align_result[0]
Hu Jiangping writes:
> Thanks, Richard!
>
> I think your suggestion is very good, so I made a new patch.
>
> v2: at a high level handles -falign-foo=0 like -falign-foo
> v1: at the target level overides the -falign-foo=0 option values
>
> Obviously, v2 is better than v1. In addition, anthor option
Hi!
Just some random comments...
On Thu, Jul 23, 2020 at 04:44:21PM +0800, Hu Jiangping wrote:
> + // fix PR96247
/* See PR96247. */
> + if (0 == atoi(arg)) {
Either
if (atoi (arg) == 0)
{
blalalala
or
if (!atoi (arg))
{
blala
Add CC to Richard.
> Thanks, Richard!
>
> I think your suggestion is very good, so I made a new patch.
>
> v2: at a high level handles -falign-foo=0 like -falign-foo
> v1: at the target level overides the -falign-foo=0 option values
>
> Obviously, v2 is better than v1. In addition, anthor optio
Thanks, Richard!
I think your suggestion is very good, so I made a new patch.
v2: at a high level handles -falign-foo=0 like -falign-foo
v1: at the target level overides the -falign-foo=0 option values
Obviously, v2 is better than v1. In addition, anthor option
to reject 0 that discussed in the
