This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: organization of optimization options in manual
- From: Jeff Law <law at redhat dot com>
- To: Gary Funck <gary at intrepid 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: Mon, 19 Jan 2015 10:03:58 -0700
- 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 01/17/15 07:34, Gary Funck wrote:
For -O1 to -O2 and -O2 to -O3, that makes sense. However, -O0 to -O1
isn't something we can do this for right now as there are still many
things that -O1 turns on that are not flag controlled.
On 01/14/15 23:15:59, Jeff Law wrote:
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.
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.)
Whether or not to make all those bits individually controllable is a
subject of debate. Personally, I think we have too many options, so my
inclination would not be to make all those bits individually
controllable. Others may have different opinions.