"Richard Guenther" writes:
> On Fri, Jan 2, 2009 at 12:36 PM, Richard Sandiford
> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Sorry in advance if this going over old ground. And if not, sorry
>> for the somewhat negative message ;), but ... I think the current
>> documentation and/or behaviour of the "optimize" attrib
On Fri, Jan 2, 2009 at 4:05 AM, Richard Guenther
wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 2, 2009 at 12:36 PM, Richard Sandiford
> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Sorry in advance if this going over old ground. And if not, sorry
>> for the somewhat negative message ;), but ... I think the current
>> documentation and/or behav
On Fri, Jan 2, 2009 at 12:36 PM, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Sorry in advance if this going over old ground. And if not, sorry
> for the somewhat negative message ;), but ... I think the current
> documentation and/or behaviour of the "optimize" attribute are a little
> confusing.
>
> The
Hi,
Sorry in advance if this going over old ground. And if not, sorry
for the somewhat negative message ;), but ... I think the current
documentation and/or behaviour of the "optimize" attribute are a little
confusing.
The current behaviour is that, if __attribute__((optimize(...))) does
not sp
