On Wed, 27 Jul 2011, Andrew MacLeod wrote: > On 07/27/2011 01:08 PM, Aldy Hernandez wrote: > > > > > Anyway, I don't think a --param is appropriate to control a flag whether > > > to allow store data-races to be created. Why not use a regular option > > > instead? > > > > I don't care either way. What -foption-name do you suggest? > Well, I suggested a -f option set last year when this was laid out, and Ian > suggested that it should be a --param > > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2010-05/msg00118.html > > "I don't agree with your proposed command line options. They seem fine > for internal use, but I think very very few users would know when or > whether they should use -fno-data-race-stores. I think you should > downgrade those options to a --param value, and think about a > multi-layered -fmemory-model option. "
The documentation says --param is for "various constants to control the amount of optimization that is done". I don't think it should be used for anything that affects the semantics of the program; I think -f options are what's appropriate here (with appropriate warnings in the documentation if most of the options should not generally be used directly by users). -- Joseph S. Myers jos...@codesourcery.com
