From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 17068 invoked by alias); 10 Feb 2005 08:52:41 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 16854 invoked by uid 48); 10 Feb 2005 08:52:36 -0000 Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2005 14:15:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20050210085236.16853.qmail@sourceware.org> From: "Thomas dot Koenig at online dot de" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org In-Reply-To: <20050209124042.19848.Thomas.Koenig@online.de> References: <20050209124042.19848.Thomas.Koenig@online.de> Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug driver/19848] "options passed" from -verbose-asm do not adequately reflect optimization X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-SW-Source: 2005-02/txt/msg00824.txt.bz2 List-Id: ------- Additional Comments From Thomas dot Koenig at online dot de 2005-02-10 08:52 ------- (In reply to comment #2) > There are a gazillion places where we just check "if (optimize)" without > any specific flag. It would be quite a lot of work to introduce flags for all > of them, and I'm not sure it's worth it... $ find . -name '*.c' | xargs grep '( *optimize[) =!><|&]' | wc -l 151 Hmm... It would still be better if this could be at least lumped into an option (maybe -foptimize-misc or whatever) which would still be visible in -fverbose-asm. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19848