Date: Fri, 13 Jan 1995 13:20:14 -0700 (MST)
From: Calimath / Sliced Bread <sl5h9 AT cc DOT usu DOT edu>
Subject: Re: gcc = gcc -O2 ?
To: djgpp AT sun DOT soe DOT clarkson DOT edu



On Fri, 13 Jan 1995, DJ Delorie wrote:

> 
> I've been asked whether it would be a Good Thing for "gcc" to default
> to "gcc -O2" rather than "gcc -O0", so that if you didn't specify
> anything, you would get optimization by default.  The reason is that
> so you would, by default, get faster programs and thus better
> benchmarks, at the cost of slower compiles.  You would still be able
> to use "gcc -O0" to shut off optimization.

   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) =============================
The optimist sees a glass that's half full.
The pessimist sees a glass that's half empty.
An engineer sees a glass that's twice as big as it needs to be!
================== http://www.declab.usu.edu:8080/~sl5h9/ ==================