From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23679 invoked by alias); 14 Dec 2010 08:40:32 -0000 Received: (qmail 23669 invoked by uid 22791); 14 Dec 2010 08:40:32 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail-qw0-f47.google.com (HELO mail-qw0-f47.google.com) (209.85.216.47) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 14 Dec 2010 08:40:27 +0000 Received: by qwg5 with SMTP id 5so267485qwg.20 for ; Tue, 14 Dec 2010 00:40:26 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.229.230.10 with SMTP id jk10mr4666952qcb.105.1292316026098; Tue, 14 Dec 2010 00:40:26 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.229.75.70 with HTTP; Tue, 14 Dec 2010 00:40:26 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <1291979498-1604-1-git-send-email-dodji@redhat.com> <4D025930.6020000@redhat.com> <4D062D34.1050606@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2010 09:40:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/6] Tracking locations of tokens resulting from macro expansion From: Gabriel Dos Reis To: Dodji Seketeli Cc: Jeff Law , gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, tromey@redhat.com, joseph@codesourcery.com, lopezibanez@gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2010-12/txt/msg01077.txt.bz2 On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 2:31 AM, Dodji Seketeli wrote: > Gabriel Dos Reis writes: > >> On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 8:27 AM, Jeff Law wrote: > > [...] > >>> I'm not sure either. =A0I wouldn't be terribly surprised if we end up c= hanging >>> our minds (whatever they may be) after a period of time with access to = more >>> thorough diagnostic information. =A0ie, we may not know what the right >>> interface should be until after we've used the info for a while. =A0So = I guess >>> we should keep our options open for the UI issues. >> >> Agreed. =A0One thing we should also keep in mind though: =A0GCC has alre= ady >> way too many flags. =A0Having dedicated flags to control every single >> aspect does not necessarily make for good design. >> > > Sure. I am not a flag-soup fan myself. My intent was just to provide a > way for people to opt in and out for experimentation purposes during, > say, stage 1. When we know what we want and come to an acceptable > implementation then of course the flag will go away. If we are sure > about what we want in advance as to avoid the flag in the first place, > even better. My experience with GCC is that things are easier to get in than to take out. And stage 1 is experimental and also the phase where you want most feedback. IMHO, it isn't a good stage to let people opt out :-)