Date:	Sat, 14 Jan 1995 08:42:00 +0900
From:	Stephen Turnbull <turnbull AT shako DOT sk DOT tsukuba DOT ac DOT jp>
To:	sl5h9 AT cc DOT usu DOT edu
Cc:	djgpp AT sun DOT soe DOT clarkson DOT edu
Subject:	gcc = gcc -O2 ?

      That sounds like a good idea.  Are there very many times when you 
   don't want to optimize, after all?

   ====================== -Jon (SL5H9 AT cc DOT usu DOT edu) =========================

(1) when you're debugging and you want the debugger to know where in
the code you are
(2) when you're porting to the same hardware but different OS and the
objects can be the same and you'd like them to be the same so that you
know it's a OS problem (or a problem that only shows up when the OS
changes, not at all the same thing)
(3) when you're trying to write a portable makefile and the hardware
is buggy (Pentium, did someone say Pentium?) and supports assorted
OSes.
    (These are not necessarily reasons to avoid optimization; they are
reasons for DJGPP to have the same default behavior as other GCCs.)
    I don't have time to think of more, is 3 reasons enough?
    --Steve <turnbull AT shako DOT sk DOT tsukuba DOT ac DOT jp>

- Raw text -