From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25334 invoked by alias); 7 Nov 2007 17:49:39 -0000 Received: (qmail 25314 invoked by uid 22791); 7 Nov 2007 17:49:38 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail1.panix.com (HELO mail1.panix.com) (166.84.1.72) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Wed, 07 Nov 2007 17:49:32 +0000 Received: from mailspool3.panix.com (mailspool3.panix.com [166.84.1.78]) by mail1.panix.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F9DC29403; Wed, 7 Nov 2007 12:49:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.60] (pool-70-104-131-18.nycmny.fios.verizon.net [70.104.131.18]) by mailspool3.panix.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D2B3B1694B; Wed, 7 Nov 2007 12:49:29 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <4731FAA9.1050100@naturalbridge.com> Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2007 17:52:00 -0000 From: Kenneth Zadeck User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (X11/20070801) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Razya Ladelsky CC: Mark Mitchell , ctice@apple.com, gcc@gcc.gnu.org, Gerald Pfeifer , Janis Johnson , stevenb.gcc@gmail.com Subject: Re: undocumented optimization options References: 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/msg00203.txt.bz2 Razya Ladelsky wrote: > Mark Mitchell wrote on 05/11/2007 01:51:33: > > >> 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 >>>> >>>> > > I'll add documentation for ipa-cp and ipa-matrix-reorg as soon as > Zadeck commits his changes to invoke.texi. > > Thanks, > Razya > > > >>>> 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 >> > > i am waiting for an approval, hint hint hint. Kenny