This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: undocumented optimization options
- From: Gerald Pfeifer <gerald at pfeifer dot com>
- To: Janis Johnson <janis187 at us dot ibm dot com>
- Cc: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, zadeck at naturalbridge dot com, razya at il dot ibm dot com, ctice at apple dot com, stevenb dot gcc at gmail dot com
- Date: Sat, 3 Nov 2007 18:22:58 +0100 (CET)
- Subject: Re: undocumented optimization options
- References: <1193936896.7293.7.camel@janis-laptop>
On Thu, 1 Nov 2007, Janis Johnson wrote:
> -fipa-cp steven
> -fipa-matrix-reorg razya
> -fipa-pure-const zadeck (enabled with -O)
> -fipa-reference zadeck (enabled with -O)
> -fipa-type-escape zadeck
> -fvar-tracking-uninit ctice
>
> Is there a policy about whether an experimental option can be left
> undocumented, or should it be documented with a statement that it is
> experimental?
I'd prefer the latter. And for options enabled by default or via one
of the commonly used options (such as -O) I believe we should always
include documentation _or_ we might want to remove those options and
make the associated active unconditionally.
> If an option is left undocumented on purpose then its entry in
> common.opt should include "Undocumented".
So far we don't seem to use that in common.opt.
Gerald