Jeffrey Walton wrote:
On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 4:51 AM, Richard Biener
wrote:
On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 6:20 AM, Chung-Ju Wu wrote:
Don't worry about possible confusion (-Og needs -gN). Document it at
http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Debugging-Options.html#Debugging-Options,
and folks should
On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 4:51 AM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 6:20 AM, Chung-Ju Wu wrote:
>> 2013/2/25 Jeffrey Walton :
>>> Hi All,
>>>
>>> I read the relase notes on GCC 4.8
>>> (http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.8/changes.html) and -Og caught my eye (the
>>> bulleted item is below).
On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 6:20 AM, Chung-Ju Wu wrote:
> 2013/2/25 Jeffrey Walton :
>> Hi All,
>>
>> I read the relase notes on GCC 4.8
>> (http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.8/changes.html) and -Og caught my eye (the
>> bulleted item is below).
> [deleted]
>>
>> What "n" does -Og correspond to for -O and -g
2013/2/25 Jeffrey Walton :
> Hi All,
>
> I read the relase notes on GCC 4.8
> (http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.8/changes.html) and -Og caught my eye (the
> bulleted item is below).
[deleted]
>
> What "n" does -Og correspond to for -O and -g (i.e., -O1, -O2; -g2, -g3)?
[deleted]
> Is -Og -g3 a valid combi
Hi All,
I read the relase notes on GCC 4.8
(http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.8/changes.html) and -Og caught my eye (the
bulleted item is below).
>From the description, it looks like the switch addresses three issues:
(1) compilation time, (2) 'debugging experience', and (3) runtime
performance. I'm not
