Hi Richard,
Well, given the replies from you, Ian and Vlad (when reviewing the patch),
I feel once again in a minority of one here :-) but... I just don't
think we should be advertising this sort of stuff to users.
OK, what about Ian's suggestion of controlling the algorithm selection
via a --param instead of a -f option ?
Not because
I'm trying to be cliquey, but because any time the user ends up having
to use stuff like this represents a failure on the part of the compiler.
A nice idea in principle, but in practice GCC already has a ton of these
specialist options. Maybe you feel that we should not be adding another
one to this list, but I think that we are already too far gone. GCC and
its long list of command line options is an established norm.
Perhaps now is the time to consider embracing projects like Acovea and
Milepost and making them an official, easier-to-use meta front end to gcc ?
I mean, at what level would we document it?
Well I rather like David's suggestion - a split gcc invocation manual
with options like -fsched-pressure-algorithm only appearing in the
here-be-dragons section.
"Here, we happen to have two algorithms to do this.
Treat them as black boxes, try each one on each
> source file, and see what works out best."
Or:
"Here, we have two algorithms to do this. You can
treat them as black boxes, try both and see which
works best for your application. Or you can delve
into their intricacies to see which ought to be the
better one for your target. See this post <link to
your submission> for a description of the algorithms.
Either way we would be interested in hearing about
which algorithm works best for you, what your application
looks like and which architecture you are using.
Please contact us at ...."
Cheers
Nick
