From patchwork Sat Mar 11 22:01:54 2017 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Patchwork-Submitter: Gerald Pfeifer X-Patchwork-Id: 737751 Return-Path: X-Original-To: incoming@patchwork.ozlabs.org Delivered-To: patchwork-incoming@bilbo.ozlabs.org Received: from sourceware.org (server1.sourceware.org [209.132.180.131]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3vgdQq46tVz9s79 for ; Sun, 12 Mar 2017 09:02:23 +1100 (AEDT) Authentication-Results: ozlabs.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key; unprotected) header.d=gcc.gnu.org header.i=@gcc.gnu.org header.b="AJIpaB5N"; dkim-atps=neutral DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gcc.gnu.org; h=list-id :list-unsubscribe:list-archive:list-post:list-help:sender:date :from:to:subject:message-id:mime-version:content-type; q=dns; s= default; b=u+ZxGsBOIaGVvuOzeDu55jsDeqZPyyg4DV940eQ/UcIyQqK1NwkFi MV7PQmILvjx2CJDQAdOHb2Lj6HRQYJOneEWNRnSU8kq1uEsKJj6Ca4T5Bl81iuIo 38zJVNh0z8eTRZEEO/udBNvCSP/v12d8Tb60LW+sozogD89GjGKXJ0= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org; h=list-id :list-unsubscribe:list-archive:list-post:list-help:sender:date :from:to:subject:message-id:mime-version:content-type; s= default; bh=uy/2fN+JxkzcHcK0q2VyngJ6tek=; b=AJIpaB5NFWRqq9VBado6 r6nmKEozbeTfBR8VoNwdKneOolqLJ91EZc5Imgfz7jM4k+xklJho7luXcR0NIG+N DY0jChcK7sprbh8fIOwwQ2Kwm/1uwTUOQhGsgk+AJi49SxH4DSZUIquJcsqG/Fms B2BAVo/ZEReRKFkSB+qzWm4= Received: (qmail 33707 invoked by alias); 11 Mar 2017 22:02:15 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org Delivered-To: mailing list gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 33686 invoked by uid 89); 11 Mar 2017 22:02:15 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-11.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, GIT_PATCH_2, GIT_PATCH_3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE, SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=disturb X-HELO: ainaz.pair.com Received: from ainaz.pair.com (HELO ainaz.pair.com) (209.68.2.66) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Sat, 11 Mar 2017 22:02:14 +0000 Received: from anthias (vie-188-118-249-200.dsl.sil.at [188.118.249.200]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ainaz.pair.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A6FB03F530 for ; Sat, 11 Mar 2017 17:02:12 -0500 (EST) Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2017 23:01:54 +0100 (CET) From: Gerald Pfeifer To: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [doc] doc/invoke.texi: tweaks around link-time optimization Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-IsSubscribed: yes As an adjective, we spell link-time with a hypen. And "link-time optimization at link time" felt a bit much. ;-) Applied, and I did a grep in all of gcc/doc for further instances. Gerald 2017-03-11 Gerald Pfeifer * doc/invoke.texi (Warning Options): Fix spelling of link-time optimization. (Optimize Options): Ditto. Also remove redundancy. Index: doc/invoke.texi =================================================================== --- doc/invoke.texi (revision 246070) +++ doc/invoke.texi (working copy) @@ -5134,7 +5134,7 @@ or, if possible, its type were declared in an anonymous namespace or with the @code{final} specifier. This warning is -more effective with link time optimization, where the information about the +more effective with link-time optimization, where the information about the class hierarchy graph is more complete. It is recommended to first consider suggestions of @option{-Wsuggest-final-types} and then rebuild with new annotations. @@ -8098,7 +8098,7 @@ Perform Identical Code Folding for functions and read-only variables. The optimization reduces code size and may disturb unwind stacks by replacing a function by equivalent one with a different name. The optimization works -more effectively with link time optimization enabled. +more effectively with link-time optimization enabled. Nevertheless the behavior is similar to Gold Linker ICF optimization, GCC ICF works on different levels and thus the optimizations are not same - there are @@ -8827,7 +8827,7 @@ optimization though GCC tries to be clever at guessing an optimization level to use from the options used at compile time if you fail to specify one at link time. You can always override -the automatic decision to do link-time optimization at link time +the automatic decision to do link-time optimization by passing @option{-fno-lto} to the link command. To make whole program optimization effective, it is necessary to make