On Sun, Dec 18, 2011 at 1:24 PM, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> Since gcc silently accepts any -Wno-* flag on purpose, it is ineffective
> to check for support of a warning flag using the negative form. Instead
> always use the positive form when running the check (but keep the
> original spelling for t
Since gcc silently accepts any -Wno-* flag on purpose, it is ineffective
to check for support of a warning flag using the negative form. Instead
always use the positive form when running the check (but keep the
original spelling for the result).
(Requires regeneration of fixincludes/configure gcc
