From: Vik Heyndrickx <Vik DOT Heyndrickx AT rug DOT ac DOT be>
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject: Re: Pointer to ... and a question
Date: Wed, 03 Dec 1997 15:07:15 +0100
Organization: University of Ghent, Belgium
Lines: 31
Message-ID: <34856793.1DE7@rug.ac.be>
References: <Pine DOT SUN DOT 3 DOT 91 DOT 971202173056 DOT 12854A-100000 AT is> <663jkq$34b$1 AT star DOT cs DOT vu DOT nl>
NNTP-Posting-Host: eduserv1.rug.ac.be
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Precedence: bulk

Ruiter de M wrote:
> Eli Zaretskii (eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il) wrote:
> : Of course, it's documented.  Here's a fragment from gcc's Info docs:
> :   `-O3'
> :        Optimize yet more.  `-O3' turns on all optimizations specified by
> :        `-O2' and also turns on the `inline-functions' option.

> Yes, I knew this. But it doesn't say it is the *only* difference, does
> it? It explains that -O3 turns on all optimizations specified by -O2,
> and that it also turns on the -finline-functions option, but it might
> not be the only difference. 

Aaargh... you're right of course.

> Or am I being too suspicious?

Probably.

> I guess we have to look at the sources to be sure.

That'll be the only way to be sure. Although I don't think there will be
an optimizer feature that won't be enabled by -O2. Imagine. Suppose
there was one, the only reason not to imply this with -O2 would be
because it would change code generation significantly (like
-finline-functions), so it would be an important feature. So it would be
mentioned explicitely with "-O3".

-- 
 \ Vik /-_-_-_-_-_-_/   
  \___/ Heyndrickx /          
   \ /-_-_-_-_-_-_/