On Fri, 8 Oct 2010 09:54:07 -0700 Gary Funck <g...@intrepid.com> wrote:
> On 10/08/10 18:38:29, Basile Starynkevitch wrote: > > I am not an expert on these optimizations, but why would you want that? > > I routinely compile/build with "-O0 -g3" because the code is easier to debug. > I > also admit that I compile/build with "-O0" because it is faster than > "-O2" or "-O3" for example, and during development I am more interested > in faster turn-around time on builds than faster execution time. I understand that. Using "-O1 -g3" is a suitable compromise also. > > Also, when I compile/build projects, I try to use the maximum level of > warnings > and checking that the source code base will support. I am willing to trade > off some support/build time in favor of more thorough warnings. You could build both a release version with "-O2" or "-O2 -g" and a development version with "-O0 -g3". Howeer, I see a logic in needing -O2 to get some warnings. Optimizations are expensive, and they compute static properties of the source code, which are usable (& necessary and used) for additional warnings. Cheers. -- Basile STARYNKEVITCH http://starynkevitch.net/Basile/ email: basile<at>starynkevitch<dot>net mobile: +33 6 8501 2359 8, rue de la Faiencerie, 92340 Bourg La Reine, France *** opinions {are only mine, sont seulement les miennes} ***
