[CMake] Determining good GCC parameters

[Brandon J. Van Every]

Antti S. Lankila wrote:
>
> I agree generic build is not very intuitive concept. I meant by 
> generic build a set of GCC options that produce code that runs on wide 
> set of architectures. This would be of interest to distributors of 
> software in general, who want their software to run on, say, any 
> Pentium-3 CPU or Athlon Duron or better. The contrast was native 
> build, which is code optimised for the host architecture the build was 
> performed on.
>
> I think the place for this type of decisions is the build system. 
> There is already build types for "release" vs. "debug", which I find 
> conceptually similar, so I thought extending that concept would be 
> good idea...

I think the "release" vs. "debug" etc. currently only have meaning for 
MSVC.  So, they aren't generic concepts, they're specific MSVC support.  
I think for generic GCC on many architectures, all you want is -O2.  Not 
much reason to build extra nomenclature for that.  I think the FSF 
typically does "-g -O2" and many people find the -g annoying, they don't 
want gratuitous debug code by default.  FSF is pushing an agenda to get 
bug reports back from people.


Cheers,
Brandon Van Every