Re: should we document more command line options

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 11:47:21AM -0800, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> I suppose that we could just add something in the general DESCRIPTION paragraph
> like:
> 
>   Besides the options listed below, sparse also accepts many C compiler command
>   line options.
> 
> but that's not very helpful (at least to me).  For my use, I made a short text
> file of other (not documented in sparse.1) command line options.  Should these
> be added to sparse.1 or elsewhere or not at all?  (Of course, some of these
> could be incorrect. :)

It seems that until now, the only options that were documented were
the ones specific to sparse, in other words the ones that are not
present in GCC. I suppose the rationale was that it is wasn't
needed since the aim is to be GCC compatible.
But of course, a lot of existing GCC options are simply ignored
by sparse, so yes, it may be interesting to know which options
are really implemented but their effect and this their description
should normally be the same in GCC.
 
-- Luc
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-sparse" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html



[Index of Archives]     [Newbies FAQ]     [LKML]     [IETF Annouce]     [DCCP]     [Netdev]     [Networking]     [Security]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [Trinity Fuzzer Tool]

  Powered by Linux