Re: [trunk<-vta] Re: [vta,vta4.3,trunk?] introduce -fcompare-debug

[Ian Lance Taylor <iant at google dot com>]

Alexandre Oliva <aoliva@redhat.com> writes:

> On Jun  2, 2009, Ian Lance Taylor <iant@google.com> wrote:
>
>> Alexandre Oliva <aoliva@redhat.com> writes:
>>>> I don't fully understand what the proposed option does, so I don't know
>>>> if this comment applies: if this is for a run-time option to improve
>>>> checking, then it should not be a -f option, it should be a --param.  -f
>>>> options are for users.  --param options are for developers.
>>> 
>>> Err...  -fdump-*, -fsched-verbose, etc are all -f options.  Besides, --*
>>> is an alias for -f*, so --param is -fparam.  And then, most if not all
>>> params I'm aware of are for users rather than for developers.
>
>> Please consider what I am really saying, and if you want to pick nits
>> then consider how gcc has developed historically.
>
> Honestly, I don't know what you're getting at.  Even -fdump-* are recent
> additions, earlier it was just -d<letter>.  I don't recall whether
> --param is newer or older, but I don't see what âfor developersâ means.
> For GCC developers?  Or for GCC users that are developers, rather than
> say gentoo users?  I took your statement as meaning GCC developers,
> which is what got me to question it with -fdump-*, but even if you meant
> GCC users that are developers, I don't quite see the distinction you're
> suggesting between -fwhatever=N and --param whatever=N, and the manual
> doesn't mention it either.  The one bit that appears to point in that
> direction is the paragraph about the options being related with
> internals and subject to change without notice.  That's certainly not
> the case of -fcompare-debug.  Besides, --param opt=N requires N to be a
> number, whereas -fcompare-debug[="opt opt"] can take multiple
> command-line options.

Yes, I mean for gcc developers.  It's a good point that --param only
takes numeric arguments.  My point is simply that this option, if we
include it, would never be for end-users of gcc (who are, yes,
themselves developers), and should be named and documented accordingly.

Ian