Email List: Xaustin-group-lX
[All Lists]

Re: c99 -I option and GCC

To: Vincent Lefevre <vincent-opgr@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: c99 -I option and GCC
From: Hal Finkel <half@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 03 Aug 2009 20:50:40 -0400
Cc: austin-group-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Organization: Hal's Software, Inc.
References: <4a76fb43.lbC4QjMxLz0GOnAz%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> <200908031526.n73FQ0M7002876@aragorn.savarese.org> <20090804003819.GE3746@prunille.vinc17.org>
Vincent,

I agree that the description of -O0 is ambiguous. It might be more
accurate to say something like:

If the optlevel option-argument is the digit '0', c99 shall operate in a
mode which minimizes its own runtime.

 -Hal

On Tue, 2009-08-04 at 02:38 +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> On 2009-08-03 11:26:00 -0400, Daniel F. Savarese wrote:
> > Are there any additional compiler options that should be included in
> > a defect report?
> 
> Here are my comments concerning the other c99 options:
> 
> What's the behavior if one gives several -D options with the same name
> and different values (and no corresponding -U option)?
> 
>   -O  optlevel
>     Specify the level of code optimization. If the optlevel
>     option-argument is the digit '0' , all special code optimizations
>     shall be disabled. [...]
> 
> "all special code optimizations shall be disabled" is quite ambiguous,
> in particular because optimizations are not clearly defined. Also,
> what's "special"?


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>