From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-return-95173-listarch-gcc=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 19509 invoked by alias); 30 Apr 2004 17:23:02 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/>
Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 19502 invoked from network); 30 Apr 2004 17:23:01 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO NUTMEG.CAM.ARTIMI.COM) (217.40.111.177)
  by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 30 Apr 2004 17:23:01 -0000
Received: from mace ([192.168.1.25]) by NUTMEG.CAM.ARTIMI.COM with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.0);
	 Fri, 30 Apr 2004 18:21:26 +0100
From: "Dave Korn" <dk@artimi.com>
To: "'gcc_mailing_list'" <gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
Subject: RE: optimization issue about -O2 and -Os
Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2004 19:45:00 -0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In-Reply-To: <87y8odiepk.fsf@egil.codesourcery.com>
Message-ID: <NUTMEGNN79xavjrRZ1U00000115@NUTMEG.CAM.ARTIMI.COM>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 30 Apr 2004 17:21:26.0750 (UTC) FILETIME=[91855FE0:01C42ED7]
X-SW-Source: 2004-04/txt/msg01463.txt.bz2

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Zack Weinberg 
> Sent: 30 April 2004 18:00

> "Dave Korn" <> writes:
> 
> >
> >   Ah, I stand corrected.  Would it be accurate to say that 
> they are _both_
> > shorthand for a set of -f options _and_ _also_ control a 
> set of other
> > behaviours, which entail enabling, disabling, or 
> fine-tuning the parameters
> > of other optimisations that do not correspond directly to 
> -f options ?
> 
> Yeah, that's pretty accurate.  You can look through the source code
> for instances of the global flags "optimize" and "optimize_size".
> Anything you can do to improve the documentation in this regard would
> be much appreciated.  It would probably be a good move to deemphasize
> all those -f switches; they tend not to be all that useful; I consider
> their primary purpose to be working around bugs in specific
> optimizations, using -On -fno-<buggy-pass>.
> 
> zw


  Hmm, maybe it would be worthwhile to invent -f options for all these
ad-hoc tests on the optimize variables, so that the -O options then *did*
become shorthand for flag sets, and the suggestion I already made for
localising the failure with a given -O setting would actually work?


    cheers, 
      DaveK
-- 
Can't think of a witty .sigline today....