On Oct 29, 2012, at 2:27 PM, Chandler Carruth <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 2:23 PM, Eric Christopher <[email protected]> wrote: >>> There is no disagreement on coming up with a good name. I just don't think >>> we should tackle the "optimize-for-size-level" part. Ideally it's one >>> attribute with rather than multiple attributes. i.e. >>> >>> optsize=1 >>> optsize=2 >>> optsize=3 >>> >>> Rather than >>> >>> optsize >>> optsizeharder >>> optsizereallyhard >>> >>> The former will require significant changes and it is not something we'd >>> want Quentin to tackle at this time. >>> >>> For the record, -Os / -Oz do not have exact definitions. They are >>> (intentionally?) subject to interpretation by different compilers / targets. >>> >> >> This is why I hate -Oz :) >> >> As a range of values it could work, but let's just pick some better >> names for now, how about a quick straw poll: >> >> OptSize/ForceOptSize -> OptSize/MinSize > > +1 Works for me too! I will change the name and propose a patch for that. I will do the same for the attribute I proposed in my last patch. Quentin _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
