This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [C++0x] contiguous bitfields race implementation
On Wed, 27 Jul 2011, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
> On 07/27/2011 01:08 PM, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
> >
> > > Anyway, I don't think a --param is appropriate to control a flag whether
> > > to allow store data-races to be created. Why not use a regular option
> > > instead?
> >
> > I don't care either way. What -foption-name do you suggest?
> Well, I suggested a -f option set last year when this was laid out, and Ian
> suggested that it should be a --param
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2010-05/msg00118.html
>
> "I don't agree with your proposed command line options. They seem fine
> for internal use, but I think very very few users would know when or
> whether they should use -fno-data-race-stores. I think you should
> downgrade those options to a --param value, and think about a
> multi-layered -fmemory-model option. "
The documentation says --param is for "various constants to control the
amount of optimization that is done". I don't think it should be used for
anything that affects the semantics of the program; I think -f options are
what's appropriate here (with appropriate warnings in the documentation if
most of the options should not generally be used directly by users).
--
Joseph S. Myers
joseph@codesourcery.com