On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 2:36 PM, Quentin Colombet <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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. >
Sounds awesome. Thanks for the patience. -eric _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
