https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21351
Nick Clifton <nickc at redhat dot com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |nickc at redhat dot com --- Comment #1 from Nick Clifton <nickc at redhat dot com> --- Created attachment 9976 --> https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=9976&action=edit Proposed patch Hi Weremaid, > The documentation for --relax isn't clear about whether or not the use of > --no-relax causes an error when the feature is not supported on a platform. Personally I think that the documentation is OK as it is, but I do not object to rewording it if you think that it will help. > If I'm not mistaken, the conditional "On platforms where --relax is > accepted" means "all platforms". No, I would not agree with that. > Imho, "[On all platforms,] --no-relax can be used to disable the feature" > should then also distinguish between supported and merely ignored. OK. > There's a patch with a proposal attached. The patch is a good start, but I think that if we are clarifying this text then we can go further and make things even more straightforward. What do you think of this revised version of your patch ? Cheers Nick -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils