On Sat, Apr 16, 2005 at 12:30:03PM -0400, Hubert Chan wrote: > >>>>> "Adrian" == Adrian Bunk <bunk@stusta.de> writes: > > Adrian> On Fri, Apr 15, 2005 at 11:58:52AM -0400, Hubert Chan wrote: > >> ... In fact, I've never looked at the gcc documentation other than > >> to look up machine-specific options and optimization flags. It's > >> easy to use gcc without the documentation. > > Adrian> Simple usage might work, but as soon as you reach any question > Adrian> like e.g. > > Adrian> How do I pass in a additional path to the include path of gcc? > Adrian> Which optimization levels does gcc support? > > These are widely known, and can be found in many makefiles, or by asking > around. Mmph. Lots of what is widely known is mythical, and you can't find the answers in the documentation either. The only place to learn what the optimisation flags for gcc do, is the source code (*especially* -O; if you think the documentation is telling you the whole story, you're wrong). Frankly, the gcc documentation is pretty awful. I consult the source more often than the manual. I suggest that this is at least partially because it's non-free - certainly that's the reason why you don't see *me* submitting patches to fix it. I'm not working on non-free stuff without getting paid for it. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature