This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: "Experimental" features in releases
- From: "Richard Guenther" <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>
- To: tromey at redhat dot com
- Cc: "Mark Mitchell" <mark at codesourcery dot com>, "GCC Mailing List" <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2006 10:04:47 +0200
- Subject: Re: "Experimental" features in releases
- References: <4443E3EA.7000508@codesourcery.com> <m34q0rpy19.fsf@localhost.localdomain>
On 17 Apr 2006 17:44:50 -0600, Tom Tromey <tromey@redhat.com> wrote:
> >>>>> "Mark" == Mark Mitchell <mark@codesourcery.com> writes:
>
> Mark> In any case, the broader question is: to what extent should we have
> Mark> experimental options in releases, and how should we warn users of their
> Mark> experimental nature?
>
> Why not put this into the option name? Something like '-Xoption' or
> '-fexperimental-option? Then people will know that it is
> experimental. Also, such options could be documented in a separate
> section to avoid people tripping over them by mistake.
Now that raises the question which option is actually experimental. I
don't think
new options get into gcc while thought of being experimental (as in, randomly
produces wrong-code) - the only one which I remember is -ftree-vectorize which
was said to be so in 4.0.
Richard.