From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 88223 invoked by alias); 28 Aug 2017 12:25:02 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 88085 invoked by uid 89); 28 Aug 2017 12:24:45 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM,SPF_PASS autolearn=no version=3.3.2 spammy=Hx-spam-relays-external:74.125.82.68, H*RU:74.125.82.68 X-HELO: mail-wm0-f68.google.com Received: from mail-wm0-f68.google.com (HELO mail-wm0-f68.google.com) (74.125.82.68) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Mon, 28 Aug 2017 12:24:22 +0000 Received: by mail-wm0-f68.google.com with SMTP id u26so407526wma.5 for ; Mon, 28 Aug 2017 05:24:17 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=MDxHQ2bGkIE3W3cSLD/sSj9s8XAuZ14FYvk7ZA/wjUk=; b=RkMu/SwydMFxmrS/65dWsQ9FtQvk04Majv1iIvTGoWj5TCeRl9taaVWOOBCdX/ndjI DF97XLrwqGz1G4bCqeNIS10qvFbHaFMEYBb8CimFBU4IEVKz5tHDp4JG/lZiuoXIufyU sUcjm46ZzquP6Pv1yajFFF2HPX8oMyO4dy7c7+IOqiO+Tz6AzB/Zz4KD67pCa39K/M3y LM5bXQiMuIdmqmZZ4MIN7S0/bGTK2vjj3nC4CMn5X8FNtoSV0X5q8Z1Np5wGukTf/OFR JVreBeuz+NSsZZdechK0WhVnHORyVnS+mhirsjtLEWzUBuvvhMpFaolHdGOUGaJzvu4S a7vA== X-Gm-Message-State: AHYfb5jINqDN0YbeiczwrRHWSZ/kevAwJGckVxUIR2rfkdcyjaCIQjMg MJ/fxTSY4qCgUlA+rR5MZnytlgDRmA== X-Received: by 10.80.139.132 with SMTP id m4mr379771edm.18.1503923056073; Mon, 28 Aug 2017 05:24:16 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.80.180.249 with HTTP; Mon, 28 Aug 2017 05:24:15 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <41109217-1bf5-b112-e783-8040196fd410@suse.cz> <20170526115155.GL8499@tucnak> From: Richard Biener Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2017 12:55:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [RFC] [PATCH] Introduce configure flag --with-stage1-cflags. To: Jeff Law Cc: =?UTF-8?Q?Martin_Li=C5=A1ka?= , Jakub Jelinek , GCC Patches Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2017-08/txt/msg01575.txt.bz2 On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 9:51 PM, Jeff Law wrote: > On 07/31/2017 01:47 AM, Martin Li=C5=A1ka wrote: >> I would like to ping this. Input from other people will be appreciated ;) > I think the thing to keep in mind here is that IIUC this only affects > things when we've configured using the --with-stage1-cflags option. > > So questions about is -O1 more stable than -O2, should we restrict -O2 > to newer compilers, etc are really more about the defaults we set. > > My understanding is the patch is just adding the capability and does not > change the default. Assuming that's the case, then I'm comfortable > acking the raw infrastructure. OTOH you can simply set STAGE1_CFLAGS so the value of this as a configure option is somewhat questionable. > jeff