[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       gcc
Subject:    Re: Option ordering
From:       Ian Lance Taylor <iant () google ! com>
Date:       2007-05-31 18:19:27
Message-ID: m33b1cvosw.fsf () localhost ! localdomain
[Download RAW message or body]

Sergei Organov <osv@javad.com> writes:

> I like the idea. I'd also suggest that group options won't do anything
> else but affecting [default values of] simple options. It means that one
> will be able to substitute a set of simple options for a "group option"
> without change in behavior (for example, this is not currently the case
> for -O,-O1,-O2 options).

That is a separate idea, and should be considered separately.

I don't personally think it would be all that useful.  We would simply
wind up with more options like -fexpensive-optimizations: basically
random and changing behaviour from release to release.

Ian
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]