Re: Target-specific pragmas

[Stan Shebs <shebs at apple dot com>]

Mark Mitchell wrote:
> 
> --On Thursday, June 21, 2001 11:27:57 AM -0400 Geert Bosch <bosch@gnat.com>
> wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, 20 Jun 2001, Stan Shebs wrote:
> >   2. Some of our pragmas exist to provide per-function control over
> >   optimization levels and flag_writable_strings.  I vaguely remember
> >   some discussion over whether there ought to be some kind of fine
> >   grained control over flags via pragmas and/or attributes.  Is there
> >   a consensus on what to do here?
> 
> [good observations]
> 
> BTW, is Apple actually documenting all these changes for its users?  If
> not, I suggest
> that you do not.

It's a mixed bag - some are documented, some are not.  I'm not
moving anything from our 2.95 into our 3.x unless it's provably
needed, and if it is, then it gets docs, test cases, etc.  As I
mentioned in a message you probably haven't seen yet, the optimization
pragma thing may be a false alarm, since I haven't found any current
usage in actual code.

> If you have, I would mark it as deprecated.  Otherwise,
> we're going to
> have to have the "Apple has this and we have millions of users so we cannot
> change
> this but we don't want to fork" vs. "Ugh!  We're not sure what that means
> and we're not
> sure we want it" argument seems like it's going to come up a lot. :-(

Sorry...  Cygnus had this fight with Cisco and Be and Mentor, with
varied results, and then with HP GDB we caved and took everything,
much to our regret.  GNU in corporations has interesting dynamics
that we ought to understand better, because this is going to keep
coming up as long as GNU continues to insinuate itself into new
environments and goes up against established compilers.

Stan