[Mingw-users] Suggestion to make full optimization the default compiler option.

[Sternbach, W. [IT] <wil...@ci...>]

Hello,

I wanted to offer a suggestion to change the default compiler option
from -O0 (No optimization) to -O3 (Maximum optimization).

The reason is that alot of the posts to this group which I have read
show that people are not using any optimization options, and because it
defaults to -O0, their EXE's are not benefiting from the outstanding
Gnu back end optimizations.  As a result, most people using GCC are getting
horribly sloppy code generated, instead of a finely tuned optimized EXE
which runs much faster.

Its only a suggestion.
What do the members of this group think of this suggestion to make
full optimization (-O3) the default compiler option.

- Bill

-----Original Message-----
From: Sean Young [mailto:se...@me...]
Sent: Friday, April 04, 2003 10:35 AM
To: min...@li...
Subject: [Mingw-users] gcc/w32api issues.



All,

Some of these questions are more gcc related, but I'm hoping this is the 
right place to ask. We've been porting a database replicator to mingw (it 
already compiled with gcc on *nix and msvc on Windows). So far, we've come 
across the following (minor) issues:

1) 

C:\>gcc -o x x.c -E

Output ends up in `x.exe', not `x'. Is that supposed to happen?

2)

When compiling an program that uses Oracle OCI and -Wshadow, I get:

D:\data\jsycu\src\jd>gmake jig_or90.dll
gcc  -g3 -Wall -Werror  -Wshadow -Wpointer-arith  -Wmissing-declarations
-Wno-char-subscripts -I../../src -c  -Id:/oracle/ora920/oci/include
-DJP_DBMS_ORA=90 -DJP_DBMS_ORA_DYN jdorc.c -o ora90/jdorc.po
cc1.exe: warnings being treated as errors
In file included from d:/oracle/ora920/oci/include/oci.h:2150,
                 from ../../src/jp/jpora.h:14,
                 from jdorc.c:7:
d:/oracle/ora920/oci/include/orl.h:3235: warning: declaration of `index'
shadows a global declaration
<built-in>:0: warning: shadowed declaration is here
d:/oracle/ora920/oci/include/orl.h:3318: warning: declaration of `index'
shadows a global declaration
<built-in>:0: warning: shadowed declaration is here
-snip-

Now one could argue that Oracle shouldn't define variables with a general
name like `index', but the same can be said about gcc. What is `index'
for?  Wouldn't __builtin_index be a better name? 

The same happens on *nix with gcc-3.2.

3)

For SQL Server, we need odbcss.h and odbcbcp.lib for bulk copy. gcc 
(rightfully) doesn't like the msvc or SQL Server includes, so they had to 
be re-written for w32api. When I've finished polishing them (where) shall 
I submit them?

I've posted a version of odbcss.h and odbcbcp.def at mingw-patches. Is there
any reason they haven't been included yet? 


Sean


-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: ValueWeb: 
Dedicated Hosting for just $79/mo with 500 GB of bandwidth! 
No other company gives more support or power for your dedicated server
http://click.atdmt.com/AFF/go/sdnxxaff00300020aff/direct/01/
_______________________________________________
MinGW-users mailing list
Min...@li...

You may change your MinGW Account Options or unsubscribe at:
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mingw-users