[cfe-dev] [RFC] A proposal for #pragma optnone

["C. Bergström"]

On 04/29/14 04:51 AM, Robinson, Paul wrote:
>> From: cfe-dev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:cfe-dev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu]
>> On Behalf Of Chandler Carruth
>>
>> Setting aside the reasonable concerns over naming...
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 6:06 AM, Dario Domizioli <dario.domizioli at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Proposals like this one have not received much attention in
>>> the past, but we are still keen to work with the community
>>> on this.
>> This doesn't seem accurate.
>>
>> When the optnone stuff was first discussed, the use of a pragma
>> *was* discussed, and there were arguments against it because
>> the semantics are highly confusing: it only has effect on the
>> function definitions which are started after the pragma. This is
>> confusing as you might start the pragma *inside* a function
>> definition. Such a pragma might even have semantic impact by
>> disabling optimizations within the body of lambda, but *not*
>> within any surrounding expressions.
> You seem to be objecting to a different proposal.
Others may be rejecting something else, but I'm clear. This stinks - 
Lets not invent wholly new pragma
------------
My voice counts for nothing around here, but I would however +1|

#pragmaoptimize level=0|
or even
#pragma OPTIMIZE OFF
---------
|
Is there any reason that wouldn't be sufficient for your needs?
-------
If you make a patch for the above I'll review it. It would also give the 
chance for anyone who is strongly apposed to really come up with some 
exceptional argument against it.



|