[resending plain text. Sorry for the noise.]
[sorry, i got stuck doing a bunch of other things.]
On Fri, May 6, 2011 at 10:05, Andrew Pinski wrote:
>
> On Fri, May 6, 2011 at 1:52 AM, Chris Demetriou wrote:
> > In theory, a more general warning-text-addition mechanism could be useful.
> > e.g.
On Fri, May 6, 2011 at 1:52 AM, Chris Demetriou wrote:
> In theory, a more general warning-text-addition mechanism could be useful.
> e.g. a flag that said "when outputting a warning about flag 'foo',
> output this additional text" could be useful.
> However, we haven't felt the need to do this fo
On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 12:19, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> Is there a reason why this cannot be an option that someone passes on
> the command line of GCC instead of a configure option?
I don't think we ever considered that approach.
That's actually a great idea, I think better for our purposes than a
On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 11:47 AM, Diego Novillo wrote:
>> OK for google/main?
Is there a reason why this cannot be an option that someone passes on
the command line of GCC instead of a configure option? Also can you
show an example of why this message would be changed?
Thanks,
Andrew Pinski
On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 14:27, Chris Demetriou wrote:
> Diego,
>
> I know this is a truly horrible and broken way to do this, but alternatives
> (e.g., NLS) don't really work for us.
>
> bootstrapped without new configuration (x86-64 ubuntu lucid, didn't bother
> to run tests), bootstrapped with op
Diego,
I know this is a truly horrible and broken way to do this, but alternatives
(e.g., NLS) don't really work for us.
bootstrapped without new configuration (x86-64 ubuntu lucid, didn't bother
to run tests), bootstrapped with option (x86-64 ubuntu lucid, with full
tests, no regressions). Manu
