From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 3302 invoked by alias); 13 Sep 2004 14:07:03 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 3089 invoked from network); 13 Sep 2004 14:07:00 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lon-mail-1.gradwell.net) (193.111.201.125) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 13 Sep 2004 14:07:00 -0000 Received: (qmail 70945 invoked from network); 13 Sep 2004 14:06:56 -0000 Received: from digraph.polyomino.org.uk (postmaster%pop3.polyomino.org.uk@81.187.227.50) by lon-mail-1.gradwell.net with SMTP; 13 Sep 2004 14:06:56 -0000 Received: from jsm28 (helo=localhost) by digraph.polyomino.org.uk with local-esmtp (Exim 4.41) id 1C6rTp-0000is-H1; Mon, 13 Sep 2004 14:06:53 +0000 Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 14:18:00 -0000 From: "Joseph S. Myers" X-X-Sender: jsm28@digraph.polyomino.org.uk To: Giovanni Bajo cc: Toon Moene , gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, gcc@gcc.gnu.org, Gerald Pfeifer Subject: Re: RFC: Remove flags -fmove-all-movables and -freduce-all-givs. In-Reply-To: <020101c49994$5130aad0$8b4e2597@bagio> Message-ID: References: <41433266.5010908@moene.indiv.nluug.nl> <20040911175806.GA10543@redhat.com> <4143E4C2.2020702@moene.indiv.nluug.nl> <020101c49994$5130aad0$8b4e2597@bagio> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-SW-Source: 2004-09/txt/msg00763.txt.bz2 On Mon, 13 Sep 2004, Giovanni Bajo wrote: > Can you please update http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.0/changes.html with also a > little rationale about why those options were removed? I thought we owe an > explanation to everybody that was using those flags and upgrade -- whether > their use was really succesfull on code generation or they only believed it > was. Also, the manual still contains the two paragraphs that followed the description of those options: These two options are intended to be removed someday, once they have helped determine the efficacy of various approaches to improving loop optimizations. Please contact @w{@email{gcc@@gcc.gnu.org}}, and describe how use of these options affects the performance of your production code. Examples of code that runs @emph{slower} when these options are @emph{enabled} are very valuable. -- Joseph S. Myers http://www.srcf.ucam.org/~jsm28/gcc/ http://www.srcf.ucam.org/~jsm28/gcc/#c90status - status of C90 for GCC 4.0 jsm@polyomino.org.uk (personal mail) jsm28@gcc.gnu.org (Bugzilla assignments and CCs)