On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 2:05 PM, Jed Brown <j...@jedbrown.org> wrote:
> Barry Smith <bsm...@mcs.anl.gov> writes: > > > Summary > > > > The reason for the current model is that in the original plan > > —with-debugging=0 would providing good compiler optimization flags > > (for each system) without the user having to set them; if the user > > set them via COPTFLAGS then we did set them ourselves. > > > > Observations > > > > 1) The “standard” for passing optimization flags to ./configure is > > CFLAGS=“-O3 crap” we don’t support this and this confuses users > > > > 2) If we followed the standard and the user only set > > non-optimization flags with CFLAGS we would not turn on > > optimization when user might expect it (does this ever happen?) > > Does it happen and would it be confusing? I think it is not confusing, > especially since it's what everyone else does. > > > 3) We provide a different, “better" way of providing optimization > > flags and other CFLAGS, but know one knows about it. > > > > 4) Our —with-debugging=0 optimization flags are pretty bad, we > > should improve them > > > > So choices are > > > > A) follow standard > > I'm inclined to do this because it's less code and simpler logic, thus > the easiest to explain. If they don't set CFLAGS, of course we have to > automatically choose reasonable defaults based on --with-debugging. > I think changing to this is worse than what we currently have. Matt -- What most experimenters take for granted before they begin their experiments is infinitely more interesting than any results to which their experiments lead. -- Norbert Wiener