probinson added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D28404#639887, @mehdi_amini wrote:
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D28404#639874, @probinson wrote: > > > Over the weekend I had a thought: Why is -O0 so special here? That is, > > after going to all this trouble to propagate -O0 to LTO, how does this > > generalize to propagating -O1 or any other specific -O option? (Maybe this > > question would be better dealt with on the dev list...) > > > O0 is "special" like Os and Oz because we have an attribute for it and passes > "know" how to handle this attribute. > I guess no-one cares enough about > https://reviews.llvm.org/owners/package/1//https://reviews.llvm.org/owners/package/2//O3 > to find a solution for these (in the context of LTO, I don't really care > about > https://reviews.llvm.org/owners/package/1//https://reviews.llvm.org/owners/package/2/). > It is likely that Og would need a special treatment at some point, maybe > with a new attribute as well, to inhibit optimization that can't preserve > debug info properly. "I don't care" doesn't seem like much of a principle. Optnone does not equal -O0. It is a debugging aid for the programmer, because debugging optimized code sucks. If you have an LTO-built application and want to de-optimize parts of it to aid with debugging, then you can use the pragma, as originally intended. I don't think `-c -O0 -flto` should get this not-entirely-O0-like behavior. https://reviews.llvm.org/D28404 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
