"Dave Korn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I very strongly feel that this optimisation should be placed under user > control rather than just disabled, and that it should remain enabled by > default at -Os; but I wouldn't go to the ropes over whether or not it's > included in -Os as long as there's a -f that will allow me to switch it back > on.
I don't think there's been any argument about that -- of course it will be user-controllable. The question is what the default should be. I think that a deeply embedded system that uses abort() is not the common case for gcc, and so the defaults shouldn't cater to it; maybe you're right that the use of -Os is a reasonable hint though. -Miles -- `To alcohol! The cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems' --Homer J. Simpson
