r189175 - Add gcc ARM flags -munaligned-access / -mno-unaligned-access

[Renato Golin]

On 27 August 2013 09:24, Dmitri Gribenko <gribozavr at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 1:11 AM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org>
> wrote:
> > I don't have that strong an opinion to keep things as they are, but I
> also
> > wouldn't change unless there is a good reason (or consensus) to do so.
>
> In my opinion, consistency is a pretty good reason.
>

That's where the grey area is... Do we strive to be consistent with the
previous behaviour, or with other flags?

The former, how it's implemented now, is that a "strict-align" flag would
taint the whole argument list, since there was no way to "un-taint". The
latter, would change how "strict-align" behaves, being more consistent with
other flags, but less consistent with its former self.

Jeroen, do you have any input in this? Any special reason for not having
made like other dual flags?

cheers,
--renato
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-commits/attachments/20130827/3ba6c8e2/attachment.html>