From: Mark Mitchell <mark@codesourcery.com>
To: Gerald Pfeifer <gerald@pfeifer.com>
Cc: Janis Johnson <janis187@us.ibm.com>,
gcc@gcc.gnu.org, zadeck@naturalbridge.com, razya@il.ibm.com,
ctice@apple.com, stevenb.gcc@gmail.com
Subject: Re: undocumented optimization options
Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2007 03:32:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <472E5B05.30904@codesourcery.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0711031818240.26054@acrux.dbai.tuwien.ac.at>
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
>>
>> 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
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-11-04 23:51 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-11-01 17:08 Janis Johnson
2007-11-03 17:22 ` Gerald Pfeifer
2007-11-05 3:32 ` Mark Mitchell [this message]
2007-11-07 17:48 ` Razya Ladelsky
2007-11-07 17:52 ` Kenneth Zadeck
2007-11-12 13:46 ` Razya Ladelsky
2007-11-12 14:04 ` Richard Guenther
2007-11-12 16:06 ` Razya Ladelsky
2007-11-12 16:07 ` Richard Guenther
2007-11-12 17:54 ` Mark Mitchell
2007-11-21 18:04 ` Razya Ladelsky
2007-11-21 20:56 ` Richard Guenther
2007-11-13 20:02 ` Ian Lance Taylor
2007-11-15 19:35 ` Razya Ladelsky
2007-11-03 20:41 ` Steven Bosscher
2007-11-03 22:28 ` Steven Bosscher
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=472E5B05.30904@codesourcery.com \
--to=mark@codesourcery.com \
--cc=ctice@apple.com \
--cc=gcc@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=gerald@pfeifer.com \
--cc=janis187@us.ibm.com \
--cc=razya@il.ibm.com \
--cc=stevenb.gcc@gmail.com \
--cc=zadeck@naturalbridge.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).