This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [graphite] Cleanup of command line parameters [PATCH]
- From: Tobias Burnus <burnus at net-b dot de>
- To: Tobias Grosser <grosser at fim dot uni-passau dot de>
- Cc: Richard Guenther <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>, Sebastian Pop <sebpop at gmail dot com>, Albert Cohen <Albert dot Cohen at inria dot fr>, GCC <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>, GCC Patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2008 13:19:26 +0200
- Subject: Re: [graphite] Cleanup of command line parameters [PATCH]
- References: <1223663206.1370.63.camel@localhost> <48EFC9C7.email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <1223776807.1452.36.camel@localhost>
Tobias Grosser wrote:
> another patch. It contains:
> - Removal of documentation outside of common.opts for (-fgraphite,
> -floop-block, -floop-interchange, -floop-strip-mine)
> This means doc/invoke.texi.
> (Proposed by Richi)
While I agree that -fgraphite does not make sense as user option, I'm
not sure about -floop-block and -floop-interchange. I could imagine that
some users would like to play with this option (though I have no real
opinion about this).
> - Removal of flag "-floop-strip-mine", as it never will improve
> performance and so there will be no use for it.
> (Proposed by Harsha)
I might have misunderstood Harsha, but I think he said that it only does
not improve the performance if used by itself, i.e. combined with other
options it is/might be profitable. Thus one may leave it in as
undocumented option. (I have no opinion about this and I did no tests, I
only wanted to stress the "by itself".)
In any case, those changes should also be documented at
http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.4/changes.html, which currently lists all options.