On Fri, Apr 30, 2021 at 1:03 AM gengqi-linux
wrote:
> Thanks for your replies.
>
I would suggest filing a bug report, and adding useful info from this
thread to the bug report. Then we can track it.
Jim
On Thu, 29 Apr 2021, Jim Wilson wrote:
> Note that only in the -mfoo6= case are the duplicate options removed from
> the command line. So pruning options requires that you have both
> RejectNegative and Negative pointing at yourself, which is not what the
> documentation says.
Thanks for the exa
-
发件人：Jim Wilson
发送时间：2021年4月30日(星期五) 10:02
收件人：Joseph Myers
抄 送：gengqi-linux ; gcc-patches
主 题：Re: About implementation of the Negative property of options.
On Wed, Apr 28, 2021 at 1:11 PM Joseph Myers wrote:
Could you please explain the bug at the *
On Wed, Apr 28, 2021 at 1:11 PM Joseph Myers
wrote:
> Could you please explain the bug at the *user-visible* level? That is,
> the particular options passed to the compiler, how those options behave,
> and how you think they should behave instead.
I added this to the riscv.opt file to create s
On Wed, 28 Apr 2021, gengqi-linux via Gcc-patches wrote:
> I have been fixing a bug. It involved the Negative property of options,
> and I have some confusion about it.
Could you please explain the bug at the *user-visible* level? That is,
the particular options passed to the compiler, how tho
I have been fixing a bug. It involved the Negative property of options, and I
have some confusion about it.
gcc/optc-gen.awk: 383
neg = opt_args("Negative", flags[i]);
if (neg != "")
idx = indices[neg]
else {
if (flag_set_p("RejectNegative", flags[i]))
idx = -1;
else {
if (opts[i
