From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21878 invoked by alias); 18 Mar 2005 16:16:42 -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 21754 invoked by uid 48); 18 Mar 2005 16:16:30 -0000 Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 16:16:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20050318161630.21753.qmail@sourceware.org> From: "gary at intrepid dot com" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org In-Reply-To: <20050304170516.20319.gary@intrepid.com> References: <20050304170516.20319.gary@intrepid.com> Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug c/20319] -fkeep-static-consts with -O asserted doesn't keep consts X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-SW-Source: 2005-03/txt/msg02218.txt.bz2 List-Id: ------- Additional Comments From gary at intrepid dot com 2005-03-18 16:16 ------- from http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2005-03/msg00491.html I think that the switch name -fkeep-static-consts might be more consistenly named if it was given the opposite sense and named something like -fdelete-unused-static-consts. The idea here is that by asserting the switch a particular optimization is _enabled_. Thus the optimizations performed at each level can be consistently enumerated by asserting a particular set of switches which enable specific optimizations. This would change the present user interface, however, I doubt that anyone is making extensive use of the current interface because at present only -fno-keep-static-consts, asserted at -O0 (no optimization), actually changes the default behavior of the compiler. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20319