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: Gary Funck <gary at intrepid dot com>,Jeff Law <law at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Sandra Loosemore <sandra at codesourcery dot com>,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: Sat, 17 Jan 2015 12:30:40 -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> <20150117143404 dot GA13533 at intrepid dot com>
On January 17, 2015 8:34:04 AM CST, Gary Funck <email@example.com> wrote:
>On 01/14/15 23:15:59, Jeff Law wrote:
>> Sounds good. I think just starting with the list & creating the
>> with the list. Then post here and we'll iterate and try to nail that
>> before you start moving everything in the .texi file.
>Something to consider, if the optimization options are re-worked:
>Arrange the -O options such that -O1 can be described by a
>distinct set of specific optimizations enabled (or disabled)
>in addition to -O0, and -O2 would be described as a composite
>of specific optimizations applied to -O1 and so on. (This
>might require the addition of new optimization options.)
>For completeness, if a specific optimization requires
>certain passes or the assertion of other options, that should
>somehow be encoded internally within the compiler.
>This would potentially make it easier to find which optimization
>(or pass) is causing a regression and might make it easier
>for users to understand the exact effect of a particular -O option.
Make sure whatever pattern is followed for optimizations is followed for warnings. It is nice to know when adding an option actually is needed.