From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 3020 invoked by alias); 4 Nov 2007 23:51:44 -0000 Received: (qmail 3010 invoked by uid 22791); 4 Nov 2007 23:51:43 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail.codesourcery.com (HELO mail.codesourcery.com) (65.74.133.4) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Sun, 04 Nov 2007 23:51:42 +0000 Received: (qmail 1544 invoked from network); 4 Nov 2007 23:51:40 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ?192.168.0.3?) (mitchell@127.0.0.2) by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 4 Nov 2007 23:51:40 -0000 Message-ID: <472E5B05.30904@codesourcery.com> Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2007 03:32:00 -0000 From: Mark Mitchell User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Gerald Pfeifer CC: Janis Johnson , gcc@gcc.gnu.org, zadeck@naturalbridge.com, razya@il.ibm.com, ctice@apple.com, stevenb.gcc@gmail.com Subject: Re: undocumented optimization options References: <1193936896.7293.7.camel@janis-laptop> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2007-11/txt/msg00109.txt.bz2 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