This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH] clarify documentation of -Q --help=optimizers
- From: Sandra Loosemore <sandra at codesourcery dot com>
- To: Martin Sebor <msebor at gmail dot com>, Alexander Monakov <amonakov at ispras dot ru>
- Cc: Gcc Patch List <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2015 18:09:45 -0700
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] clarify documentation of -Q --help=optimizers
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- Newsgroups: gmane.comp.gcc.patches
- References: <56299713 dot 6040204 at gmail dot com> <562997A9 dot 3090203 at gmail dot com> <alpine dot LNX dot 2 dot 20 dot 1511031309390 dot 3529 at monopod dot intra dot ispras dot ru> <563A9A31 dot 5060306 at gmail dot com>
On 11/04/2015 04:52 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
gcc/ChangeLog:
2015-11-04 Martin Sebor <msebor@redhat.com>
* opts.c (print_filtered_help): Indicate when an optimization option
is disabled as a result of -O0.
* doc/invoke.texi: Further clarify the effect of -O options
on individual optimization options.
invoke.texi is a huge file. In ChangeLogs, please use (node name) to
indicate which sections have been changed unless the changes really do
apply throughout the whole file.
@@ -1509,6 +1509,14 @@
disabled or set to a specific value (assuming that the compiler
knows this at the point where the @option{--help=} option is used).
+It's important to remember that when a given optimization option is
+enabled, either explicitly on the command line or implicitly, whether
+or not the optimization it controls will be performed during an
s/will be performed/is performed/
+Finally, the following example shows the difference in output for
+an option that, while technically enabled, is disabled as a consequence
+of the implicit @option{-O0} option, and for one that is disabled by
+default. This distinction is typically only of interest to GCC developers.
If the distinction is only interesting to developers, why does it need
an example in GCC's user documentation? :-S
I don't have any other comments on the writing aspects of the patch, but
others may want to comment on technical accuracy, etc.
-Sandra