Displaying 3 results from an estimated 3 matches for "spaceaggress".
2013 Nov 27
0
[LLVMdev] Disabling certain optimizations at -O1?
...he
need to make -O1 be debuggable could very well be the just the thing I
needed to give names to the optimization options.
Earlier this year I proposed we have names, rather than numbers, that
would represent our optimization levels:
0 = Debug
1 = FastDebug
2 = Speed
3 = Aggressive
S = Space
Z = SpaceAggressive
I'm assuming there is little value in -O1 than just a faster debug
experience, so why not make it take decisions on the debug illusion as
well? Ie. ignore my -g/-O1 dependency I proposed.
> Intuitively I'd expect that the set of passes to be run would vary with
> opt level, and...
2013 Nov 27
2
[LLVMdev] Disabling certain optimizations at -O1?
> AFAIU, it's not OK for -g to affect code generation. I agree with the
> rest of your plan.
That's correct, -g must not affect code generation. This is a
fundamental mantra among debug-info people.
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 2:16 PM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org>
> wrote:
> > On 27 November 2013 08:43, Evgeniy Stepanov
>
2013 Nov 28
2
[LLVMdev] Disabling certain optimizations at -O1?
...e just the thing I
> needed to give names to the optimization options.
>
> Earlier this year I proposed we have names, rather than numbers, that
> would represent our optimization levels:
>
> 0 = Debug
> 1 = FastDebug
> 2 = Speed
> 3 = Aggressive
> S = Space
> Z = SpaceAggressive
>
> I'm assuming there is little value in -O1 than just a faster debug
> experience, so why not make it take decisions on the debug illusion as
> well? Ie. ignore my -g/-O1 dependency I proposed.
Okay. I worked on compilers where -O1 was the default, actually, and
it was "...