This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: organization of optimization options in manual
- From: Joel Sherrill <joel dot sherrill at oarcorp dot com>
- To: Jeff Law <law at redhat dot com>, Sandra Loosemore <sandra at codesourcery dot com>
- Cc: GCC Development <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>, Gerald Pfeifer <gerald at pfeifer dot com>, "Joseph S. Myers" <joseph at codesourcery dot com>
- Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2015 09:12:00 -0600
- Subject: Re: organization of optimization options in manual
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <54B70059 dot 3030808 at codesourcery dot com> <54B736E8 dot 70406 at redhat dot com> <54B75A61 dot 5070102 at codesourcery dot com> <54B75B1F dot 3070308 at redhat dot com>
On 1/15/2015 12:15 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 01/14/15 23:12, Sandra Loosemore wrote:
>> On 01/14/2015 08:41 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
>>> With the section being ~60 pages, my first thought is we have way too
>>> many options!
>> Heh, at least we have documentation for all those options. :-)
>>> But that's not likely to change. Though perhaps the
>>> process will encourage some culling of options that really don't make
>>> sense anymore.
>> Would we want to remove useless options outright, or deprecate them for
>> a while with removal to happen at some future time, or just deprecate
>> them and/or document that they are not useful?
> We typically deprecate and leave it as a nop for a major release cycle,
> then do final removal the next major release.
>> I guess it can't be any worse than it is now, though, where the whole 60
>> pages is essentially a "misc bucket". I'll see if I can put together a
>> plan for splitting things up.... if there are too many leftovers maybe
>> others can help by suggesting different/additional categories.
> Sounds good. I think just starting with the list & creating the buckets
> with the list. Then post here and we'll iterate and try to nail that
> down before you start moving everything in the .texi file.
I think this is a great idea.
It may make sense for some options to end up with details in one section
and a reference in another. I am wondering if there are some common
questions users ask about options which could be addressed like this.
Disabling C++ exceptions and RTTI plus the floating point options for
performance which usually come up in Intel C vs GCC benchmarks
come to mind.
Joel Sherrill, Ph.D. Director of Research & Development
joel.sherrill@OARcorp.com On-Line Applications Research
Ask me about RTEMS: a free RTOS Huntsville AL 35805
Support Available (256) 722-9985