This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH] Make warn_inline Optimization option.
- From: Richard Biener <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>
- To: Jan Hubicka <hubicka at ucw dot cz>
- Cc: Martin Liška <mliska at suse dot cz>, GCC Patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2020 15:46:11 +0100
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] Make warn_inline Optimization option.
- References: <5d016fbb-2d9e-72de-290f-a651fdd99e3c@suse.cz> <CAFiYyc3Hj8akDw3fuVL-XQz_YNxX=pt1inzLPa7BQ4Yv8cSf8A@mail.gmail.com> <20200107142650.GI85087@kam.mff.cuni.cz>
On Tue, Jan 7, 2020 at 3:26 PM Jan Hubicka <hubicka@ucw.cz> wrote:
>
> > Err - Optimization also lists it in some -help section? It's a Warning
> > option and certainly we don't handle per-function Warnings in general
> > (with LTO) even though we have #pragma GCC diagnostic, no?
> >
> > I'm not sure why we force warn_inline to zero with -O0, it seems much
> > better to guard false warnings in some other way for -O0?
>
> Well, we can do that with warn_inline, but in general we do want to
> stream late warnings (so things like -Wmaybe-uninitialized works sort of
> as expected for -flto). So I guess we want way to mark option as part of
> TARGET_OPTIMIZATION_NODE even though it is not realy an optimization
> option but parameter, warning or semantic change.
Given all warning options can be enabled/disabled via #pragma GCC diagnostic
all Warning annotated options should be implicitely 'Optimization' for
the purpose
of LTO streaming then?
Richard.
> Honza