This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: undocumented optimization options
- From: "Richard Guenther" <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>
- To: "Kenneth Zadeck" <zadeck at naturalbridge dot com>
- Cc: janis187 at us dot ibm dot com, gcc-patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, gerald at pfeifer dot com, jsm at polyomino dot org dot uk
- Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2007 10:07:22 +0100
- Subject: Re: undocumented optimization options
- References: <1193936896.7293.7.camel@janis-laptop> <472F77D3.firstname.lastname@example.org>
On 11/5/07, Kenneth Zadeck <email@example.com> wrote:
> Janis Johnson wrote:
> > Several options reported by --help=optimize are not documented in the
> > GCC Manual (via invoke.texi) but are still reported with
> > --help=optimize,^undocumented. Here are the options along with the
> > people who checked in the entries to common.opt:
> > -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?
> > If an option is left undocumented on purpose then its entry in common.opt
> > should include "Undocumented".
> > Janis
> This patch gets me off of janis's bad list (or at least the one
> associated with undocumented options). As directed by diego, I sorted
> the option lists for -O, -Os and -O2 since this had rotted.
> 2007-11-05 Kenneth Zadeck <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> * common.opt: Add pointer to doc/options.texi.
> * doc/invoke.texi (-fdse, -fdce, -fauto-inc-dec, -fipa-pure-const,
> -fipa-reference): Add or correct doc. Sorted options list for -Os
> -O, -O2.
> Ok to commit?