On 17 Apr 2006 17:44:50 -0600, Tom Tromey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>>>> "Mark" == Mark Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Mark> In any case, the broader question is: to what extent should we have > Mark> experimental options in releases, and how should we warn users of their > Mark> experimental nature? > > Why not put this into the option name? Something like '-Xoption' or > '-fexperimental-option? Then people will know that it is > experimental. Also, such options could be documented in a separate > section to avoid people tripping over them by mistake.
Now that raises the question which option is actually experimental. I don't think new options get into gcc while thought of being experimental (as in, randomly produces wrong-code) - the only one which I remember is -ftree-vectorize which was said to be so in 4.0. Richard.
