On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 10:16 AM, Robert Dewar <de...@adacore.com> wrote:
> On 4/12/2012 11:06 AM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
>
>> What is nonsensical there?
>>
>>> But they *are* ordinal.
>>
>>
>> Now?  What is the order?
>
>
> less warnings to more warnings, what could be more
> ordered than that!

What exactly do you put in -Wn to make it give *more* warning?
I can think of a reduced number of switch that would give you
more warning on a specific program without them being terribly
useful.

>
>
>>>  It works just fine for -O,
>>
>>
>> Exactly what happens with -O?  -On does not necessarily
>> generate faster or better code when n is higher.
>
> -On means more optimizations for higher n, simple enough?

like the traditional -O2 vs. -O3?

>
>>
>> In fact, -Os is a perfect example of a short name that is NOT
>> a number.
>
> right, because -Os lies outside the more optimizations for
> higher values rule.

because -Os says it optimizes for size, the expectation is clear.
-O3 does not necessarily give better optimization than -O2.

> I agree with Dave Korn, I do not understand your objection.

I am objecting to the perceived benefits of the scheme and
the false dubious analogy with -O.

>
> I would understand an objection of the general kind that you
> prefer mnemonic names to numbers, but that ultimately is just
> that a preference, nothing more.

I would not be surprise if any contrary opinion to your preference
isn't a preference :-)

> You seem on the contrary to
> be trying to make a substantive argument against the digit
> scheme, but I can't understand it.

I am puzzled by this.

Reply via email to