This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: undocumented optimization options
- From: Razya Ladelsky <RAZYA at il dot ibm dot com>
- To: Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>
- Cc: ctice at apple dot com, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, Gerald Pfeifer <gerald at pfeifer dot com>, Janis Johnson <janis187 at us dot ibm dot com>, stevenb dot gcc at gmail dot com, zadeck at naturalbridge dot com
- Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2007 19:47:35 +0200
- Subject: Re: undocumented optimization options
Mark Mitchell <mark@codesourcery.com> wrote on 05/11/2007 01:51:33:
> Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> > 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
> >>
I'll add documentation for ipa-cp and ipa-matrix-reorg as soon as
Zadeck commits his changes to invoke.texi.
Thanks,
Razya
> >> 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.
>
> I believe our policy to be that *all* command line options must be
> clearly documented. The document can say that the option is
> experimental, deprecated, or otherwise in danger of being removed or
> changes, but we should document the option.
>
> If an option is only useful for developers, and we really think that
> users should not be allowed to twiddle it, we should hide it under an
> #ifdef.
>
> Thanks,
>
> --
> Mark Mitchell
> CodeSourcery
> mark@codesourcery.com
> (650) 331-3385 x713