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

["C. Bergström"]

On 05/ 1/14 12:35 PM, Alex Rosenberg wrote:
> On Apr 30, 2014, at 4:10 AM, Dario Domizioli 
> <dario.domizioli at gmail.com <mailto:dario.domizioli at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 30 April 2014 09:18, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org 
>> <mailto:renato.golin at linaro.org>> wrote:
>>
>>     On 29 April 2014 23:49, Robinson, Paul
>>     <Paul_Robinson at playstation.sony.com
>>     <mailto:Paul_Robinson at playstation.sony.com>> wrote:
>>     > Which cycles us back to the original proposal:
>>     >
>>     > #pragma clang optnone [on|off]
>>     >
>>     > ...which is obviously tied to the attribute of the same name, which
>>     > seems like at least a small goodness.
>>
>>     Right, I think my list of arguments has ended. This seems as good
>>     as any.
>>
>>
>> Ok... so do we now have a consensus on the original spec?
/* ignorable rant
No - you just listened to a select group of (important) individuals and 
pushed this through
*/
>>     #pragma clang optnone on
>>     // code decorated with optnone
>>     #pragma clang optnone off
>
> FWIW, I find the double negative confusing to expose to users 
> (although sensible in the IR). I'd spell it #pragma clang optimize 
> on|off. This also allows expansion space for more fine-grained control 
> if we ever go down that dark path.
>
> Alex, bikeshed painter.
+1 from a fellow bikeshed painter and similarly dislikes the double negative