This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: undocumented optimization options
- From: Kenneth Zadeck <zadeck at naturalbridge dot com>
- To: Razya Ladelsky <RAZYA at il dot ibm dot com>
- Cc: Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>, ctice at apple dot com, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, Gerald Pfeifer <gerald at pfeifer dot com>, Janis Johnson <janis187 at us dot ibm dot com>, stevenb dot gcc at gmail dot com
- Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2007 12:49:29 -0500
- Subject: Re: undocumented optimization options
- References: <OF67E5BFA7.E166CF66-ONC225738C.00619340-C225738C.0061C05E@il.ibm.com>
Razya Ladelsky wrote:
> Mark Mitchell <mark@codesourcery.com> wrote on 05/11/2007 01:51:33:
>
>
>> 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
>>>>
>>>>
>
> I'll add documentation for ipa-cp and ipa-matrix-reorg as soon as
> Zadeck commits his changes to invoke.texi.
>
> Thanks,
> Razya
>
>
>
>>>> 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
>>
>
>
i am waiting for an approval, hint hint hint.
Kenny