On 1/15/2015 12:15 AM, Jeff Law wrote: > On 01/14/15 23:12, Sandra Loosemore wrote: >> On 01/14/2015 08:41 PM, Jeff Law wrote: >>> With the section being ~60 pages, my first thought is we have way too >>> many options! >> Heh, at least we have documentation for all those options. :-) >> >>> But that's not likely to change. Though perhaps the >>> process will encourage some culling of options that really don't make >>> sense anymore. >> Would we want to remove useless options outright, or deprecate them for >> a while with removal to happen at some future time, or just deprecate >> them and/or document that they are not useful? > We typically deprecate and leave it as a nop for a major release cycle, > then do final removal the next major release. > >> I guess it can't be any worse than it is now, though, where the whole 60 >> pages is essentially a "misc bucket". I'll see if I can put together a >> plan for splitting things up.... if there are too many leftovers maybe >> others can help by suggesting different/additional categories. > Sounds good. I think just starting with the list & creating the buckets > with the list. Then post here and we'll iterate and try to nail that > down before you start moving everything in the .texi file. I think this is a great idea.
It may make sense for some options to end up with details in one section and a reference in another. I am wondering if there are some common questions users ask about options which could be addressed like this. Disabling C++ exceptions and RTTI plus the floating point options for performance which usually come up in Intel C vs GCC benchmarks come to mind. > jeff -- Joel Sherrill, Ph.D. Director of Research & Development joel.sherr...@oarcorp.com On-Line Applications Research Ask me about RTEMS: a free RTOS Huntsville AL 35805 Support Available (256) 722-9985
