From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 16410 invoked by alias); 3 Jul 2007 19:45:11 -0000 Received: (qmail 16230 invoked by uid 48); 3 Jul 2007 19:45:01 -0000 Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2007 19:45:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20070703194501.16229.qmail@sourceware.org> X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC References: Subject: [Bug other/31349] [4.3 Regression] gcc -v --help returns no options for C, C++ In-Reply-To: Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org From: "brooks at gcc dot gnu dot org" Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2007-07/txt/msg00365.txt.bz2 ------- Comment #5 from brooks at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-07-03 19:45 ------- Nick - So, if I understand correctly: all of the options are listed somewhere, but we no longer provide any information about which of the shared options under "language related options" are supported by a given language's front end? While this may have been intentional, I do not think it counts as a feature -- the listing of the "common" options without definitions at the top of the option listing did not take up a significant amount of space, and it provided very useful information that's now not absent. (On the other hand, moving the _descriptions_ of the shared options to a single listing is a good thing, IMO -- I want to make it clear that I'm not objecting to the bulk of this change!) -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31349