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: [RFH] - Less than optimal code compiling 252.eon -O2 for x86

From: Bernd Schmidt <bernds_cb1 at t-online dot de>
To: law at redhat dot com
Cc: Steven Bosscher <stevenb at suse dot de>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, fjahanian <fjahanian at apple dot com>,Richard Henderson <rth at redhat dot com>
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2005 20:12:14 +0200
Subject: Re: [RFH] - Less than optimal code compiling 252.eon -O2 for x86
References: <B7C12C01-DBA8-4F56-9DF3-4BE0C45D5ADD@apple.com> <71AD0926-2DA8-4B55-828F-38A85155CC86@apple.com> <27918F7A-CBBC-4657-AB29-3242BE6DF53D@apple.com> <200506301855.19658.stevenb@suse.de> <1120153723.4621.224.camel@localhost.localdomain>

Jeffrey A Law wrote:

I'd tend to agree.  I'd rather see the option go away than linger on
if the option is no longer useful.

I wouldn't mind that, but I'd also like to point out that there are Makefiles out there which hard-code things like -fforce-mem. Do we want to keep the option as a stub to avoid breaking them?

Bernd

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [RFH] - Less than optimal code compiling 252.eon -O2 for x86
  - From: Joe Buck
- Re: [RFH] - Less than optimal code compiling 252.eon -O2 for x86
  - From: Jeffrey A Law

References:
- [RFH] - Less than optimal code compiling 252.eon -O2 for x86
  - From: Fariborz Jahanian
- Re: [RFH] - Less than optimal code compiling 252.eon -O2 for x86
  - From: Fariborz Jahanian
- Re: [RFH] - Less than optimal code compiling 252.eon -O2 for x86
  - From: fjahanian
- Re: [RFH] - Less than optimal code compiling 252.eon -O2 for x86
  - From: Steven Bosscher
- Re: [RFH] - Less than optimal code compiling 252.eon -O2 for x86
  - From: Jeffrey A Law

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