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.
