с кем-то я там беседовал о максимальном числе после -O в gcc |
[Oct. 21st, 2010|06:17 pm] |
из gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org:
> Using the -On optimization flag, what is the greatest «n» value that
> can I use? In the gcc manual (4.5.1, 4.4.5, 3.4.6) the greatest level
> documented is -O3
> (http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-4.5.1/gcc/Optimize-Options.html#Optimize-Options),
> but if you tray for example with -O4, -O5, -O9, etc. no warning nor
> error is emitted.
From the source code, you could use a number up to 255 (all numbers
greater than 255 are cut to 255). But currently, whatever number greater
than 3 you use, you'll only get -O3 optimization, though the
documentation is correct.
> What is the correct answer? Is -O3 the higher optimization level as is
> documented in the manual or -O4, -O5 performs additional
> optimizations?
I can't find any indications in the source code that -O4, … has any
real additional effect than -O3
> If -O3 is the higher why the use of -O4, -O5 not emits
> a warning or error?
>
I don't know the real reason for this implementation, unfortunately, but
my guess is that it was implemented to simplify the extension of new opt
levels, but yes, a warning could be added ;-) |
|
|
оперовцы продолжают жевать говно |
[Oct. 21st, 2010|07:51 pm] |
не прошло и ста лет, как они решили спиздить у тормозиллы идею расширений.
а соплевидные шревты на пингвинусе так и не пофиксили. ебанашки потому что. видимо, это охуеть какой сложный фикс, требует тысяч человеколет.
надеюсь, они скоро обанкротятся. |
|
|
gcc, хозяйке на заметку |
[Oct. 21st, 2010|11:04 pm] |
Compile with -fdiagnostics-show-option. This will show with each warning what option controls generation of that warning. |
|
|