This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Flag granularity (was gcc-patches: New insns for the s390 backend(2))
- From: Laurent GUERBY <guerby at acm dot org>
- To: Bradley Lucier <lucier at math dot purdue dot edu>
- Cc: Roger Sayle <roger at eyesopen dot com>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2003 21:44:58 +0200
- Subject: Flag granularity (was gcc-patches: New insns for the s390 backend(2))
- References: <67FF7D88-D8BF-11D7-87F3-003065B239F6@math.purdue.edu>
- Reply-to: guerby at acm dot org
[Moved to gcc]
On Wed, 2003-08-27 at 20:51, Bradley Lucier wrote:
> [...] In general, it would be nice to
> have -funsafe-math-optimizations split into smaller flags, but where to
> put the lines? I don't know.
Why do we have to put lines? In other words if we are careful
in managing our flag namespace, why not having as many
flags as we want? It would at least reduce endless
discussions about flag granularity once and for all
(of course this will generate "finding a good name" discussions
but that's less boring :).