This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH, committed] Add ability to set the optimization options and on ix86 target options on a function specific basis
2008/7/23 Michael Meissner <gnu@the-meissners.org>:
>
> Hmmm, I did sent out the patch several times over the last two months.
>
Sure. I didn't mean anything by my comment but to express that it was
my fault and apologizing in advance for commenting so late. All my gcc
work is voluntary and I don't have much free time lately so I tend to
skip messages that don't include me in the CC list.
>> * Why don't make a 1-to-1 mapping between the command-line option and
>> the argument to option("") ?
>>
>> It seems pretty cumbersome to have to strip the -m for each option.
>
> This is due to feedback from another reviewer to strip the '-' and 'm'. The
> optimize code allows this as an option. It is fairly easy to add.
Do you have a link to this discussion at hand? I would like to
understand what is the benefit of stripping the -m.
>> * In relation to the previous. Why separate options with commas
>> instead of spaces? In other words, why not make the argument of
>> option("") behave as the command-line. That is, the commandline "gcc
>> -march=i686 -mfpmath=sse,387" has a 1-to-1 mapping to
>> option("-march=i686 -mfpmath=sse,387"). Also, you don't need to work
>> around commas.
>
> It should be simple to do.
I honestly feel it will be better on the long run and will avoid
problems like the above with -mfpmath.
Cheers,
Manuel.