organization of optimization options in manual

[Joel Sherrill]

On 1/15/2015 12:15 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 01/14/15 23:12, Sandra Loosemore wrote:
>> On 01/14/2015 08:41 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
>>> With the section being ~60 pages, my first thought is we have way too
>>> many options!
>> Heh, at least we have documentation for all those options.  :-)
>>
>>> But that's not likely to change.  Though perhaps the
>>> process will encourage some culling of options that really don't make
>>> sense anymore.
>> Would we want to remove useless options outright, or deprecate them for
>> a while with removal to happen at some future time, or just deprecate
>> them and/or document that they are not useful?
> We typically deprecate and leave it as a nop for a major release cycle, 
> then do final removal the next major release.
>
>> I guess it can't be any worse than it is now, though, where the whole 60
>> pages is essentially a "misc bucket".  I'll see if I can put together a
>> plan for splitting things up....  if there are too many leftovers maybe
>> others can help by suggesting different/additional categories.
> Sounds good.  I think just starting with the list & creating the buckets 
> with the list.  Then post here and we'll iterate and try to nail that 
> down before you start moving everything in the .texi file.
I think this is a great idea.

It may make sense for some options to end up with details in one section
and a reference in another. I am wondering if there are some common
questions users ask about options which could be addressed like this.
Disabling C++ exceptions and RTTI plus the floating point options for
performance which usually come up in Intel C vs GCC benchmarks
come to mind.
> jeff

-- 
Joel Sherrill, Ph.D.             Director of Research & Development
joel.sherrill@OARcorp.com        On-Line Applications Research
Ask me about RTEMS: a free RTOS  Huntsville AL 35805
Support Available                (256) 722-9985