On Tue, Apr 29, 2025 at 08:42:42AM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> > I think the new version is far more honest. It's been bothering me for a
> > bit but couldn't figure out the right phrasing to edit. Thanks.
>
> Jakub, are the var-tracking -O0 vs. -On bits accurate?
Yes. LGTM.
Jakub
; >> > +better than @option{-O0}.
> >> >
> >> > Like @option{-O0}, @option{-Og} completely disables a number of
> >>
> >> For me, "completely skips" would be clearer here than "… disables …".
> >
> > OK.
> &
ption{-O0}, @option{-Og} completely disables a number of
>>
>> For me, "completely skips" would be clearer here than "… disables …".
>
> OK.
>
>> > optimization passes so that individual options controlling them have
>> > no effect. Otherwise
@option{-Og} enables all @option{-O1}
> > -optimization flags except for those that may interfere with debugging:
> > +optimization flags except for those known to greatly interfere with
> > debugging:
New version below.
Richard.
>From edfa25350c949acfd50954a5178cec8722b32
On Mon, 28 Apr 2025, Richard Biener wrote:
> The following rewords the documentation for -Og which over-promises
> the ability to debug the generated code. While -Og enables
> var-tracking and thus improves debugging in some areas the experience
> is usually worse than -O0 for standard C code.
>
The following rewords the documentation for -Og which over-promises
the ability to debug the generated code. While -Og enables
var-tracking and thus improves debugging in some areas the experience
is usually worse than -O0 for standard C code.
Any other comments/clarifications? OK?
Thanks,
Rich
