This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH GCC]Remove support for -funsafe-loop-optimizations
- From: Martin Jambor <mjambor at suse dot cz>
- To: NightStrike <nightstrike at gmail dot com>
- Cc: "Bin.Cheng" <amker dot cheng at gmail dot com>, Bin Cheng <Bin dot Cheng at arm dot com>, "gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, nd <nd at arm dot com>, Richard Biener <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>
- Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2016 11:42:41 +0200
- Subject: Re: [PATCH GCC]Remove support for -funsafe-loop-optimizations
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <HE1PR0801MB17555AF75D185CC9D9E685EDE7330@HE1PR0801MB1755.eurprd08.prod.outlook.com> <CAF1jjLs6kzz0oOyxQ5rrJDb1dUpbOVFH5fK0XzH0w-nkvxbTeA@mail.gmail.com> <CAHFci29bs5O9=8Lddb72-zg2y9N80NxcWWBRqGXPR25tNzv3=A@mail.gmail.com> <CAF1jjLt19cT5yztM=6tx7ZvHQAxvrzekjun875w-LwuDnCSL+A@mail.gmail.com>
Hi,
On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 11:28:48AM -0400, NightStrike wrote:
> Well, one thing to note is that the warning is an easy way to get a
> notice of a possible missed optimization (and I have many more
> occurrences of it in a particular code base that I use). If the
> warning is highlighted potential issues that aren't due to the -f
> option but are issues nonetheless, and we remove the warning, then how
> should I go about finding these missed opportunities in the future?
> Is there a different mechanism that does the same thing?
Yes, -fopt-info and -fopt-info-OPTIONS switches. It certainly seems
to be a more natural means for manual compiler-guided optimization
than warnings.
Martin