Date: Sun, 15 Jan 1995 16:09:56 -0500 (CDT)
From: Aaron Ucko <UCKO AT VAX1 DOT ROCKHURST DOT EDU>
Subject: Re: gcc = gcc -O2 ?
To: eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il
Cc: djgpp AT sun DOT soe DOT clarkson DOT edu
Organization: Rockhurst College; Kansas City, MO

>> This came up because someone thought that most PC compilers, by
>> default, optimized, so gcc should also.
>
>I don't think this is so.  What compilers are these?
At least TC and QC; presumably others also exhibit this behavior.
Of course, their optimization is rather minimal...and both require
the equivalent of -O2 (which, at least in TC's case, can be slightly
dangerous) to be manually specified; both, therefore, could be said
to default to -O1.

>> Should -g imply -O0 as the default?
>
>Again, no, IMO.  Except of the compatibility reason above,
>this also requires one more thing to remember.
OK, I give in on this point.

--- Aaron Ucko (ucko AT vax1 DOT rockhurst DOT edu; finger for PGP public key) -=- httyp!
-=*=-Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you.-=*=-
Geek code 2.1 [finger hayden AT vax1 DOT mankato DOT msus DOT edu for explanation]: 
 GCS/M/S d(-) H s g+ p? !au a-- w+ v+ C++(+++)>++++ UL++(-)(S+)>++++ P++ 
 L+(++) 3(-) E-(----) !N>++ K- W-(---) M-(--) V(--) po-(--) Y+(++) t(+) !5 j R 
 G tv--(-) b+++ !D(--) B--(---) e>++++(*) u++(@) h!() f(+) r-(--)>+++ n+(-) y?