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: -O2 versus -O1 (Was: Re: GCSE store motion)

From: Andreas Schwab <schwab at suse dot de>
To: Daniel Egger <degger at fhm dot edu>
Cc: Robert Dewar <dewar at gnat dot com>,GCC Developer Mailinglist <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
Date: Fri, 17 May 2002 12:06:38 +0200
Subject: Re: -O2 versus -O1 (Was: Re: GCSE store motion)
References: <20020516145925.76A05F2D44@nile.gnat.com><1021623207.14735.8.camel@sonja.de.interearth.com>

Daniel Egger <degger@fhm.edu> writes:

|> Am Don, 2002-05-16 um 16.59 schrieb Robert Dewar:
|> 
|> > Is this really a goal? Because if it is, we fall far short, -O1 code is
|> > nowhere near "as debuggable as possible".
|> 
|> What about simply disabling any problematic optimisation when -g is
|> supplied?

This is against the policy of not changing the generated code when -g is
enabled.

Andreas.

-- 
Andreas Schwab, SuSE Labs, schwab@suse.de
SuSE GmbH, Deutschherrnstr. 15-19, D-90429 Nürnberg
Key fingerprint = 58CA 54C7 6D53 942B 1756  01D3 44D5 214B 8276 4ED5
"And now for something completely different."

References:
- Re: -O2 versus -O1 (Was: Re: GCSE store motion)
  - From: Robert Dewar
- Re: -O2 versus -O1 (Was: Re: GCSE store motion)
  - From: Daniel Egger

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