On Wed, Jan 8, 2020 at 11:22 AM Jan Hubicka <hubi...@ucw.cz> wrote:
>
> > > > Given all warning options can be enabled/disabled via #pragma GCC
> > > > diagnostic
> > > > all Warning annotated options should be implicitely 'Optimization' for
> > > > the purpose
> > > > of LTO streaming then?
> > >
> > > Well, perhaps they can be marked but for late optimizations this does
> > > not work
> > > __attribute__ ((warning("haha"))) test() { }
> > > #pragma gcc diagnostic ignore "-Wattribute-warning"
> > > test2() { test(); }
> > >
> > > We have many warning options but only few of them are late - it would be
> > > nice to have them explicitly marked somehow IMO (by design and to avoid
> > > streaming a lot of useless flags)
> >
> > Hmm, indeed. Well, I belive we use the 'Optimization' flag for other
> > purposes
> > than only triggering LTO streaming and option save/restore, so we need
> > another
> > flag that only triggers save/restore then (and also allow us to avoid
> > dropping the
> > flag at lto-option streaming time where we currently drop all warning
> > options).
>
> Yep. I was not aware of any other use of "Optimization" flag, but
> definitly it is misnamed in this context (as is OPTIMIZATION_NODE btw).
I think it sets CL_OPTIMIZATION and we have in opts.c
case CL_WARNING:
description = _("The following options control compiler
warning messages");
break;
case CL_OPTIMIZATION:
description = _("The following options control optimizations");
break;
so depenent on the enum value we'll get the wrong one for warnings and the above
suggests those flags are not to be set at the same time. Likewise
--params, btw:
case CL_PARAMS:
description = _("The following options control parameters");
break;
so that really asks for a separate CL_* flag (and maybe implicitely setting that
for all CL_OPTIMIZATION flags).
Richard.
> Honza
> >
> > Richard.
> >
> > > honza
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Richard.
> > > >
> > > > > Honza
