This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: undocumented optimization options
- From: Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>
- To: Gerald Pfeifer <gerald at pfeifer dot com>
- Cc: Janis Johnson <janis187 at us dot ibm dot com>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, zadeck at naturalbridge dot com, razya at il dot ibm dot com, ctice at apple dot com, stevenb dot gcc at gmail dot com
- Date: Sun, 04 Nov 2007 15:51:33 -0800
- Subject: Re: undocumented optimization options
- References: <1193936896.7293.7.camel@janis-laptop> <Pine.LNX.4.64.0711031818240.26054@acrux.dbai.tuwien.ac.at>
Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> On Thu, 1 Nov 2007, Janis Johnson wrote:
>> -fipa-cp steven
>> -fipa-matrix-reorg razya
>> -fipa-pure-const zadeck (enabled with -O)
>> -fipa-reference zadeck (enabled with -O)
>> -fipa-type-escape zadeck
>> -fvar-tracking-uninit ctice
>>
>> Is there a policy about whether an experimental option can be left
>> undocumented, or should it be documented with a statement that it is
>> experimental?
>
> I'd prefer the latter.
I believe our policy to be that *all* command line options must be
clearly documented. The document can say that the option is
experimental, deprecated, or otherwise in danger of being removed or
changes, but we should document the option.
If an option is only useful for developers, and we really think that
users should not be allowed to twiddle it, we should hide it under an
#ifdef.
Thanks,
--
Mark Mitchell
CodeSourcery
mark@codesourcery.com
(650) 331-3385 x713