On 11/05/2015 04:30 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
On Thu, Nov 05, 2015 at 02:04:47PM -0700, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 11/05/2015 10:09 AM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
On Thu, Nov 05, 2015 at 08:58:25AM -0700, Martin Sebor wrote:
I don't think that reiterating in a condensed form what the manual
doe
On Thu, Nov 05, 2015 at 02:04:47PM -0700, Martin Sebor wrote:
> On 11/05/2015 10:09 AM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> >On Thu, Nov 05, 2015 at 08:58:25AM -0700, Martin Sebor wrote:
> >>I don't think that reiterating in a condensed form what the manual
> >>doesn't make clear in many more words will he
On 11/05/2015 10:09 AM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
On Thu, Nov 05, 2015 at 08:58:25AM -0700, Martin Sebor wrote:
I don't think that reiterating in a condensed form what the manual
doesn't make clear in many more words will help. First, even users
who do find the relevant text in the manual often
On Thu, 5 Nov 2015, Martin Sebor wrote:
> Yes, I agree that printing "disabled by -O0" when -fexceptions is
> explicitly enabled on the command line is not right if the option
> isn't actually affected by -O0. This would be prevented if we knew
> which of the -fxxx options are or aren't controlled
On 11/05/2015 11:07 AM, Joseph Myers wrote:
On Thu, 5 Nov 2015, Martin Sebor wrote:
There are several options marked Optimization that are actually matters of
language semantics that I don't think have anything to do with -O options,
e.g. -fexceptions and -fcx-limited-range. The Optimization t
On Thu, 5 Nov 2015, Martin Sebor wrote:
> > There are several options marked Optimization that are actually matters of
> > language semantics that I don't think have anything to do with -O options,
> > e.g. -fexceptions and -fcx-limited-range. The Optimization tag really
> > just means that it's
On 11/05/2015 10:10 AM, Joseph Myers wrote:
On Thu, 5 Nov 2015, Martin Sebor wrote:
optimiziation. We seem to have consensus that even though there
might be exceptions (do we know what some of them are?) the vast
majority optimizations that have -fxxx options are in fact not
performed at -O0. I
On Thu, 5 Nov 2015, Martin Sebor wrote:
> optimiziation. We seem to have consensus that even though there
> might be exceptions (do we know what some of them are?) the vast
> majority optimizations that have -fxxx options are in fact not
> performed at -O0. I think reflecting that in the output is
On Thu, Nov 05, 2015 at 08:58:25AM -0700, Martin Sebor wrote:
> I don't think that reiterating in a condensed form what the manual
> doesn't make clear in many more words will help. First, even users
> who do find the relevant text in the manual often misunderstand it.
> Others are misled by the "[
On 11/05/2015 03:48 AM, Alexander Monakov wrote:
On Thu, 5 Nov 2015, Joseph Myers wrote:
On Wed, 4 Nov 2015, Martin Sebor wrote:
Improving the compiler output is a good idea. The attached patch
prints "[disabled by -O0]" instead of "[enabled]" when an optimization
option is enabled by default
On Thu, 5 Nov 2015, Joseph Myers wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Nov 2015, Martin Sebor wrote:
>
> > Improving the compiler output is a good idea. The attached patch
> > prints "[disabled by -O0]" instead of "[enabled]" when an optimization
> > option is enabled by default but when optimization (i.e., -O1 or
>
On 11/04/2015 06:09 PM, Sandra Loosemore wrote:
On 11/04/2015 04:52 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
gcc/ChangeLog:
2015-11-04 Martin Sebor
* opts.c (print_filtered_help): Indicate when an optimization option
is disabled as a result of -O0.
* doc/invoke.texi: Further clarify the effect o
On 11/04/2015 04:52 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
gcc/ChangeLog:
2015-11-04 Martin Sebor
* opts.c (print_filtered_help): Indicate when an optimization option
is disabled as a result of -O0.
* doc/invoke.texi: Further clarify the effect of -O options
on individual op
On Wed, 4 Nov 2015, Martin Sebor wrote:
> Improving the compiler output is a good idea. The attached patch
> prints "[disabled by -O0]" instead of "[enabled]" when an optimization
> option is enabled by default but when optimization (i.e., -O1 or
> greater) is not enabled.
I don't think it's enti
On 11/03/2015 03:19 AM, Alexander Monakov wrote:
On Thu, 22 Oct 2015, Martin Sebor wrote:
[Sending to the right list this time]
The documentation of the -Q --help=optimizers options leads some
to expect that when options are reported as enabled imply the
corresponding optimization will take pl
On Thu, 22 Oct 2015, Martin Sebor wrote:
> [Sending to the right list this time]
>
> The documentation of the -Q --help=optimizers options leads some
> to expect that when options are reported as enabled imply the
> corresponding optimization will take place. (See the following
> question on gcc
16 matches
Mail list logo
