[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Disabling optimization

From: Andrew Suffield
Subject: Re: Disabling optimization
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2004 17:25:39 +0000
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.6+20040907i

On Fri, Nov 19, 2004 at 05:58:58PM +0100, address@hidden wrote:
> >>>>> "Andrew" == Andrew Suffield <address@hidden> writes:
> Andrew> Uh, that made no sense at all. Are you saying that you should not
> Andrew> write code, because it's not possible to write code that works on
> Andrew> every platform?
> >> 
> >> What he is trying to say (I believe) is that it is not a good habit to
> >> write nonportable code because you are too lazy to even think about
> >> portability, and to try to persuade other to do so as well. The former
> >> is your own problem, while the latter is not.
> Andrew> It's certainly not a good habit to write lousy code because you're too
> Andrew> lazy to consider which platforms your application is going to run on,
> Andrew> or to persuade other people to write lousy code because your platform
> Andrew> is crippled.
> I'm not a particular fan of HP-UX, but I still don't see why the lack
> of the native compiler's -O0 option would render a platform crippled.

It makes fine-grained control of compiler options somewhere between
difficult and impossible. Without properly negatable options, the best
you can do is cheap all-or-nothing hacks (see earlier in this thread
for several examples), where the user can only deactivate all the
logic in the configure script and do it by hand.

  .''`.  ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
 : :' : |
 `. `'                          |
   `-             -><-          |

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]