This is the mail archive of the gcc@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [TESTCASE] Minimized testcase for AltiVec segfault


Richard Henderson <rth@redhat.com> writes:

> On Wed, Feb 27, 2002 at 05:43:23PM -0800, Geoff Keating wrote:
> > David's comment applies to every option that GCC has; there's no need
> > to go around renaming -funroll-all-loops to -fdebug-unroll-all-loops
> > just because it's sometimes ineffective or dangerous.
> 
> No, if -funroll-all-loops crashes or produces incorrect code, you
> report it as a compiler bug, and it may eventually get fixed.
> 
> If -mpowerpc produces "incorrect" code, you get told that you
> don't know what you're doing.  So why have options with such
> tantilizing names?

It doesn't produce "incorrect" code, so far as I know, it just doesn't
do what some people might think it would do, and often not what they
want to do either :-).  The problem is that the option name is too
short, really; it should be -menable-powerpc-instructions or something.

-- 
- Geoffrey Keating <geoffk@geoffk.org> <geoffk@redhat.com>


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]