--- Comment #6 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-26 12:33 ---
There is not a canonical interpretation of non-optimizing within gcc. If there
is interest in such, proposals are welcome.
Closing as WONTFIX until there is consensus what should be done at -O0 and what
not.
--
--- Comment #5 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-15 17:43 ---
This is either a bug or not. I think that if it is not mere constant folding
and it takes some effort, we should not do it. So let's decide so we can either
confirm it or close it as invalid.
--
manu at gcc dot gnu
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-03 12:37 ---
How is this confusing? We simplify/fold builtins and other expressions at -O0
all the time.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #4 from nathan at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-03 12:49 ---
I find it a surprise that when not optimizing, the compiler has examined the
printf string and determined it can replace the printf with a puts call. This
seems more than mere constant folding.
--
