►
From YouTube: C/C++ Compiler Options Best Practices (March 1, 2023)
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
If
you
have
any
opens,
please
add
them
in
the
open
section.
A
A
A
A
A
A
That
all
right,
we
are
a
first
order.
Business
I
mentioned
last
time.
We
are
looking
for
a
working
group
member
to
assist
in
leading
our
little
effort
here,
helping
drive.
It
won't
be
able
to
make
this
call
all
the
time.
So
just
someone
to
help
keep
us
on
course
and
moving
us
forward
as
we
collaborate
on
this
document.
A
Don't
need
an
answer
right
now,
but
please
consider
doing
that.
C
So
I
I
would
be
happy
to
volunteer
for
that
in
the
interest
of
getting
this
nice
little
project.
Moving
on
okay,.
A
Well,
thank
you,
Thomas,
any
any
objection
to
Thomas
helping
lead
us
on
our
little
Adventure
here.
A
D
A
Thank
you
all
right.
Let
us
start
so.
Where
are
we
I
know?
We
called
last
time
that
our
Eric's
and
friends
had
a
very
nice
document
that
we
were
going
to
use
as
kind
of
the
foundation
for
our
work
going
forward
and
then
figure
out
how
if
we
want
to
make
any
stylistic
changes
or
what
we
might
want
to
bleed
in
from
the
original
document,
so
kind
of.
Where
are
we
today.
E
B
E
E
I
have
indeed
all
right,
I'm
gonna
turn
off
my
video.
Can
people
hear
me?
Yes,
all
right,
I,
don't
know.
What's
going
on,
I
think
my
system's
temporarily
confused
okay,
so
so
I
guess
for
immediate
things,
I
think
we
I
I
would
propose
that
we
merge
it
step
one
step.
Two
I
would
like
to
argue
about
the
name
of
this
thing.
A
All
right
so
I
am:
let's
talk
about
the
name,
while
I
kind
of
kick
GitHub
along
through
the
process,
and
we
should
have
a
file
to
start
looking
at
shortly.
So
let's
talk
about
the
title.
E
Okay,
I
believe,
okay,
I
believe
it's
important
to
use
the
word
options
in
this
name.
You
know
I
I,
I
I
in
particular,
I
I.
Very
much
worry
if
we
use
the
word
tool
chain
hardening
that,
while
OAS
does
use
that
term
that
for
many
people
means
hardening
the
build
system,
the
the
build
environment
against
attacks
and
Tool
chains
are
more
than
compilers.
E
E
You
know
CC
plus
plus
compiler,
option
Flags
or
something
like
that.
I
mean
it
doesn't
have
to
be
that
specifically,
but
something
along
those
lines.
C
From
from
my
side,
I
I
don't
have
any
objections
to
that
I
I
believe
you
suggested
this
compiler
options,
hardening
guide
for
C
and
C,
plus
plus
in
the
pr
comments
and
I
went
ahead
and
did
a
commit
that
changed
both
the
file
name
and
the
and
the
title
I
did
also
a
quick
pass
to
remove
any
references
to
Tool
chain
hardening
from
the
introductory
text.
C
C
E
E
Oh,
my
goodness,
I
joke
I,
don't
know
why
that
would
be
all
right.
So
yeah,
you
know
include
the
word:
options
updated
the
draft.
Oh
my
goodness.
Okay,
let's
see
so
what
what's
our?
What's
our
new
title
here.
A
F
G
E
But
yeah,
let's
I
I
am
there
are
there
are
just
arguments
not
worth
having.
E
I
mean
we
can
argue
whether
or
not
the
word
flag
should
be
there,
but
really
I.
Think
that's
the
key
is
whether
or
not
the
word
Flags
is
there
I
think
the
text
should
have
the
word
flag
somewhere,
but
I
mean
that's,
that's
not
a
big
deal,
but
having
opt
compiler
and
options
in
CNC
plus
plus
I
think
is
awesome.
E
I
think
so,
because
this
is
not
about
tool
chain
hardening
in
a
broad
General
sense,
yeah
I
have
no
trouble
with
the
word
hardening.
It's
the
lack
of
that
word
options.
You
know
so
short
answer.
I
think
this
is
a
great
title,
so.
E
Well,
the
document
does
but
but
the
document
covers
both
of
those
now
it
actually
doesn't
currently
cover
all
C
and
C,
plus
plus.
It's
really
only
set
clang
and
GCC.
E
Yeah,
the
Microsoft
compiler
is
probably
the
main
one
that
people
use
that
isn't
covered
here.
A
E
A
E
Yeah
so
I
I
guess
I
would
argue
that
there's
the
there's
the
GCC
compatible
options,
so
you're
talking
GCC
clang
Intel.
Obviously
they
don't
all
support
exactly
the
same,
but
they
support
many
there's
an
overlap.
You
can
easily.
A
Maybe
an
action
would
be
to
as
we
now
that
we're
progressing
forward
to
reach
out
to.
We
do
have
folks
from
AMD
that
pop
into
some
of
the
working
groups,
we
can
reach
out
to
that
person
again.
I'll
poke
Diana
for
Intel,
if
it's
relevant,
if
it
adds
value
to
the
document,
I.
E
E
D
E
H
A
So
I'll
take
the
action
item
that
I'll
reach
out
to
avishay
and
see
if
he
can
find
somebody
inside
Redmond.
That
would
be
able
or
interested
to
be
you,
let's
evaluate
how
they
would
like
to
contribute
some
of
that
stuff.
E
Are
some
citations
that
I
found
that
have
some
of
this
material
and,
let's
see,
if
you
give
me
a
second,
you
know
in
our
current
draft
I
think
we've
got
some
materials
I'm!
Sorry,
not
the
current
in
the
previous
draft,
where
we
started
trying
to
do
this
all
ourselves
and
by.
G
E
Way
this
is
so
much
better
as
a
starting
point.
What
I
propose
is
basically
go
back
to
that
older
document
and
see
what
nuggets
can
be
merged
in
here
and,
in
particular
those
citations
to
those
talks
about
micro,
the
Microsoft,
compiler,
so
I
I
guess
maybe
maybe
be
helpful
to
have
a
path
forward.
E
I
would
say
why
don't
we
go
ahead
and
add
a
section,
a
whole
new
section
like
a
heading?
What
are
we
using
heading?
Are
we
using
heading
one
as
the
title
or
heading
one
as
the
okay?
It
looks
like
heading
one
is
the
title
and
everything
else
is
smaller.
Okay,
so
a
heading
to
you
know
basically
kind
of
a
restart
for
the
Microsoft
compiler.
E
If
it
turns
out
later
that
we
can
merge
these
that's
great,
but
just
because
everything's
so
different,
I
I
think
it
might
be
better
just
to
start
over
for
that.
Yeah.
A
E
A
C
Yeah
I
I
think
that's
something
to
maybe
keep
in
mind
if
we
are
getting
also
like
the
other
compilers
and
depending
on
where
we're
adding
them.
So
there
was
some
text
in
this
at
the
beginning
of
this
compiler
options:
sections
with
the
two
big
tables
that
try
to
sort
of
open
up
like
the
original
rational
right,
because
we
did
leave
quite
a
lot
of
things
out
of
scope.
So
I
think
that
that's
this
scope
is
evolving.
E
Am
I
suggesting
this
too
soon,
and
maybe
we
should
just
say
that
this
is
just
for
GCC
and
ceiling
and
have
a
separate
docking
for
the
Microsoft
One
I
mean
that
would
be
totally
it's
okay
for
us
to
narrow
our
scope.
For
now,
you
know
make
a
you
know,
make
a
good
effort,
good
document.
This
is
already
a
good
document.
My
thank
hats
off
I.
H
E
If
we're
going
to
do
that,
do
we
want
to
change
this
title?
H
E
Right
right,
right,
exactly
I
mean
there's
a
there's,
a
whole
bunch
of
other
tools
that
are
also
typically
called
part
of
a
tool
chain.
So
we're.
E
H
Just
for
the
record,
I
also
ask
them
if
they
can
add
the
bugs
the
links
to
the
bugs,
where
at
least
things
are
being
tracked.
That
would
be
awesome
because,
like
gentu
has
a
huge
list
of
stuff
that
doesn't
work
with
notifications,
three
that
they're
currently
working
on
that
yeah,
so
I
I
asked
if
they
could
also
include
those
types
of
URLs
in
their
edits.
So
we
do
put
fortifications
three.
We
say
that
it's
something
that's
currently
in
testing
and
if
you
want
to
find
out
what
doesn't
compile
you
can
go
here:
yeah,
okay,
because.
C
Yeah,
that
sounds
that
sounds
fantastic
and
I.
Think
that's
something
that
we
did.
We
we
did
struggle
a
little
bit
in
in
compiling
this
document
was
that
there
are
like
some
of
these
features,
which
don't
necessarily
have
feature
parity
between
GCC
and
SRI,
lank
I.
C
Is
kind
of
something
that
would
be
like
really
good
to
have
an
understanding
to
have
an
understanding
of,
but
exactly
as
you
say,
it
usually
requires
you
to
know
where
that
feature
is
tracked
and
and
see
like
what
are
the
open
bugs
against
that.
C
I
I
think
that
this
was
like
in
particular
something
that
we
did
see
in
like
this
fortify
fortify
stores
and
there's
like
different
behaviors
depending
on.
If
you
are
linking.
B
C
New
libsy
or,
if
you're,
linking
against
bionics
libsy.
So
you
just
have
to
be
like
aware
of
what
what
exactly
you
are
trying
to
do
and
whether
or
not.
A
So
in
the
chat
Siddharth
suggested
since
we're
on
lately
on
the
topic
of
title
changes,
C
C,
plus
plus
optimization
Flags,
is
that
uncontroversial.
E
Not
yeah
my
case.
Works,
therefore,
is
always
better,
so
I
I
would
suggest
no
there's
actually
other
other
materials,
and
the
reality
is
that
performance
benchmarks
quickly
goes
down
the
rabbit
hole
of
it
depends
on
your
use
case.
So
therefore,
you
should
Benchmark,
which
is
true,
but
not
very
helpful,
whereas
if
we
focus
on
the
security
ones,
I
think
that's
an
area
that
a
lot
of
people
don't
focus
enough
on.
H
C
C
G
E
Okay,
so
for
now
we're
going
to
focus
on
GCC
and
similar
option
Flags,
we
probably
ought
to
say
that,
and
you
know
and
acknowledge
we
made
at
other
completely
different
ones
later.
Adding
the
dental
ones,
I
think
is,
is
great.
E
I
think
in
general
we
want
to
add
Flags,
even
if
they're
only
supported
by
some
or
one.
You
know
they're
supported
by
one
compiler,
but
not
others,
and
the
value
of
this
document
is
very
much
to
make
it
easy
to
notice.
Oh,
that's
not
supported
in
the
other.
To
be
honest,
I
see
that
as
one
of
the
big
values
of
this
thing.
E
What
I
was
saying
is
like
if
it's
in
GCC
and
not
clang
or
clang,
but
not
TCC,
or
it's
still,
okay
for
the
in
this
document,
it
sounded
like
we're.
We
had
various
options
on
the
table
for
Microsoft.
That's
the
challenging
one
yeah.
D
H
E
Correct
you're
you're,
looking
at
me
funny
at
least
they
used
to
be
now.
It's
been
a
very
long
time
since
I
used
the
Intel,
C
compiler,
but
well
C
plus
plus
compiler,
is
what
they're
going
to
tell
you.
Intel
C,
plus
plus
compiler
options.
So.
A
H
H
E
A
And
then
for
Microsoft,
we
feel
it's
different
enough.
We'd
like
a
separate,
similar
structure
and
flow,
but
a
separate
document
for
Microsoft
or
other.
E
Yeah
so
let's
see
here,
F
no
implicit
templates.
Let
me
pull
out
my
GCC.
A
So
I'll
talk
with
avishay
to
see
if
we
can
find
somebody
within
Microsoft
from
their
compiler
group
to
see
if
they're
interested
in
contributing
and
then
I'll
talk
to
Diana
from
Intel
and
I'll,
see
who
our
AMD
rep
was.
We've
I
in
some
of
the
groups
I've
been
in
we've
had
an
AMD
person,
so
let
me
find
out
who
that
is
I'll
reach
out
to
that
person
and
see
if
they
are
interested
in
submitting
some
patches
for
us.
C
So
it
would
seem
to
me
that,
for
like
the
Intel
and
AMD
compilers
as
long
as
it's,
if
it's
already
that
option
that
we
cover
in
this
document,
I
guess
that
we
can
just
add
that
compiler
into
the
into
the
table
right
and
ideally
with
the
with
the
correct
version.
C
And
then
then
I,
guess
that
there
is
the
question
of
what
do
we
do
with
the
options
that
are
only
supported
by
GCC,
only
supported
by
CE
Lang
ordering
in
the
future,
only
supported
by
Intel
or
green
dollar
AMD
compilers
and
like
something
that
we
did
sort
of.
We
did
sort
of
consider
having
like
a
section
on
like
GCC
only
options
or
c-lang
only
options,
so
to
have
kind
of
like,
like
the
common
options
in
one
place
and
then
have
like
a
dedicated
section
and
then,
and
we
were
even.
C
We
were
even
looking
at
looking
at
adding
like
sections
on
platform,
specific
options
right.
So
there
are
some
options
that
doesn't
make
sense.
If
you,
that
only
makes
sense,
if
you
compile
for
like
Intel
architectures
and
their
options,
that
only
make
sense
if
you
compile
for
arm
architectures.
So
so
would
would
that
be.
C
Would
that
be
a
possibility
that
we
would
have
basically
a
section
for
cross-platform
but
GCC
only
options
cross-platform,
but
ceiling
only
options
and
then
potentially
then
platform
specific
action
for
platform,
specific
options
that
can
be
then
subdivided
via
architecture
or
does
that
become
too
complex?.
E
It
does
make
sense,
it
will
be
interesting
if,
for
example,
you've
got,
you
know,
let's
say
we're
at
Intel.
That
means
we'll
have
the
common
ones
won't
necessarily
be
completely
common.
If
I
recall
correctly,
the
Intel
compiler
does
not
support
a
large
number
of
options
compared
to
say
GCC
or
clang,
so
common
will
just
mean
two
or
more,
and
if
it's
Unique
well
I
mean,
let
me
say.
A
E
So,
let's
think
about
from
the
user's
point
of
view
from
the
user's
point
of
view,
what
they
care
about
are
the
option
flags
that
they
can
add
for
their
specific
compiler.
Most
people
have
picked
I
mean
most
people
who
may
want
to
we're
writing
scene.
Six
plus
Maverick
won't
want
it
to
work
on
another
compiler,
but
they
probably
are
going
to
use
it
using
a
specific
one
and
that's
the
one
they
care
about
or
whatever
whatever
that
one
is.
H
E
I
think
both,
but
in
both
cases.
H
E
Yeah,
but
a
lot
of
folks,
it
you
know
I'm
compiling
for
a
particular
Hardware
device.
You
know
we've.
We
already
know
what
yeah
a
group
of
Hardware
we
have.
You
know
we
have
a
particular
I'm
going
to
use
the
word
standard
and
misuse
it,
but
you
know
our
organization.
We
have
picked
this
particular
compiler
and
that's
the
one
we're
going
to
use.
E
So
what
I'm
trying
to
say,
though,
is
that
the
I
compiler
option
flags
that
are
only
implemented
by
one
compiler
are
definitely
of
interest
to
a
lot
of
people,
because
that's
the
compiler
that
they
are
using,
be
it
a
system
integrator.
They
probably
have
a
preferred
compiler
a
particular
developer.
They
have
a
probably
have
a
particular
compiler
in
mind.
E
E
A
Dharthy
you
want
to
provide
some
additional
context
to
your
last
question.
Okay,.
E
A
E
A
H
E
B
B
E
Oh
okay,
oh
you
know,
dividing
in
phases
sure
that
I
I
would
argue.
In
fact,
that's
what
we're
doing
right
now
is
we're
trying
to
figure
out
what
scope
we
want
to
bite
off
here.
E
H
Fair
they
said
I
could
add
that
stuff
later
I
think
once
we
get
our
flags
together,
I
think
that
I
can
go
back
into
like
all
of
the
Gen
2
archives
that
we
have
and
I
can
start
pulling
that
information
out
as
one
of
the
later
stages
and
figure
out
where
how
we
could
display
it
best.
But
I
do
think
it's
important,
because
I
have
run
in
with
it
to
enough
people
like
in
all
honesty,
David.
E
Okay
right
so
I
guess
what
I
would
suggest
so
so
I
guess
where
we're
coming
to
this
as
far
as
the
crypto
Flags
I
would
say,
bring
it
on,
but
somebody's
gonna
have
to
do
the
work,
but.
H
E
Right,
what
what
do
other
people
feel
I
mean
that
sounds
it.
It
sounds
in
scope
but
narrow,
as
the
child
is.
A
Yeah
I,
don't
I,
don't
know
that
we
want
to
make
that
our
our
primary
target,
but
if
it
happens
along
the
way
I,
don't
it's
not
an
alien
concept?
It's
adjacent
but
I'd
like
to
try
to
focus
on
you
know
getting
this
document
as
refined
and
augmented
as
much
as
possible
and
then,
as
we
have
additional
contributions,
we
can
evaluate
how
and
where
to
put
them
in
out.
B
C
A
C
Have
any
I
don't
have
any
objections
either.
I
I
also
agree
that
it
probably
sounds
like
something
that
could
be
a
good
appendix
I.
I.
Think
that
it's
it's
it's
maybe
just
that
in
overall
in
in
like
from
the
overall
perspective
of
keeping
like
this
somehow
like
tractable,
that
you
can
actually
find
stuff
in
the
document.
I
I
think
it
just
would
be
sort
of
good
to
have
some
understanding
of
the
general
structure.
C
E
By
the
way
you
make
a
very
good
point:
findability
I'd
like
to
I
mean:
let's
can
we
add
that
just
as
a
new
subject,
findability?
Okay?
E
So
now
that
it's
in
markdown,
which
generates
HTML,
you
know
basically,
let's
see
here,
I
want
to
make
sure
that
there
is
a
way
to
find
particular
compiler
Flags
quickly
or
something
like
that.
Let's
see
right
now,
the
headings
are
like
enable
additional
function,
format,
warnings.
E
You
know,
I,
wonder
if
we
can
add
you
know,
like
you,
know
the
W
conversion
and
W
sine
convert.
You
know
those
sorts
of
things
as
named
links.
E
Yeah
so
so,
let's
see
here,
I
mean
I
mean
the
usual
approach
is
span
ID.
Let
me
pick
a
name
here
and
you
can
do
it.
You
can
do
it
this
way.
If
you
want
but
I
don't
know
if
WR
may
be
two,
let's
see
here
how
about
stat
Clash
protection.
G
D
E
F
Well
funny
you
should
mention
latex
I'm,
actually
having
another
discussion
with
latex
generation
so
too
late
for
that
I've
used.
E
I've
seen
worse,
yeah
I,
I
I,
don't
there's
probably
Linux
Foundation
somebody
somewhere
probably
uses
it
I
think
it's
uncommon,
I've,
never
seen
it
in
the
LF,
but
probably
somewhere.
It's
somewhere.
E
Okay,
I,
don't
actually
know
of
leading
with
a
dash,
is
legal
for
an
HDMI
lid
I'm
sure
that
somebody
somewhere
will.
E
All
right,
but
I
I
think
it.
If
we
did
that
technically,
the
value
for
an
idea
attribute
may
contain
any
character
except
white
space,
but
they
recommend
that
only
ASCII
digits
underscore
and
dash
be
used.
E
I
I
realized
that
it
will
create
Mark
that
that
will
create
some
ugliness
in
the
markdown.
So
that's
a
proposal
in
in
the
markdown
and
so
that's
the
proposal.
The
advantages
you
can
jump
anywhere
in
the
documentally
to
something
the
disadvantage
is.
It
does
make
the
markdown
look
a
little
ugly
when
you
do
that.
There.
E
C
I
just
ask
for
clarification,
so
do
you
actually
want
to
change
the
the
kind
of
like
section
titles
or
do
you
just
want
to
have
it
like?
So
it's
still,
it
still
looks
the
same,
but
you
just
add
this
span.
That's.
E
C
E
E
Well,
I
was
thinking
basically
up
further
I'm,
imagining
at
the
top.
We're
gonna
eventually
have
some
high
level
disc,
more
high
level,
discussion
and
popping
down.
Basically,
every
time
you
want
to
discuss
the
details,
you
can
go
click
and
see
the
details.
That's
the
five!
That's
I,
don't
know
if
you
want
to
call
that
findability
or
whatever,
but
you
know
basically
making
it
easy
to
refer
to
it
from
elsewhere,
including
by
the
way
external
documents.
E
And
I'm
a
man
now
this
is
also
making
another
assumption
and
I'm.
Assuming
this
tell
me
if
I'm
wrong,
but
I'm,
assuming
that,
for
example,
for
dash
F
pi
I
was
just
maybe
that
was
a
bad
example:
bash
Dash,
F,
Capital
Pi,
because,
yes,
I,
know,
there's
two
pies,
there's
there's
multiple
pies
there'd
be
one
place
where
the
most
information
is
I.
Think
that's
true
for
the
current
document
and
that's
where
I
would
put
this.
H
You
know
David
real
quick.
Do
anchors,
not
work
for
this
as
well
Mark
down
anchors,
markdown.
E
Anchors
work,
but
the
problem
is
they're
like
like
there's,
multiple
oftentimes
there's
more
than
one
compiler
option.
That's
in
a
category.
G
E
Okay,
like
f
Standard
Time,
like
right
now,
well
like
like
there's
so.
E
You
know
yeah.
If
you
want
to
refer
to
a
markdown
heading,
then
you
can
just
refer
to
a
markdown
heading
and
presumably
we're
gonna
use
the
GitHub
convention
for
the
markdown
headings.
Yeah.
H
I
know
markdown
uses
anchors
or
GitHub
markdown
can
use
anchors,
so
I
was
asking.
E
Great,
we
can.
E
Right,
that's
that's
the
negative
of
that
proposal
and
it's
it's
okay
for
you
to
say,
Nat
makes
it
too
ugly
just
use
GitHub
headers,
so
GitHub
markdown,
IDs
already
work
and
if
everybody
says
hey,
let's
just
refer
to
that.
That's
okay,
too.
E
C
Yeah
I
I,
wonder
whether
it
sort
of
like
implies
that
and
correct
me
if
I'm
wrong,
if
I,
if
I'm
reading
too
much
into
this,
but
it
sort
of
a
little
bit
sounds
like
that.
You
sort
of
envisioned
this
that,
like
we
would
basically
have
like
sort
of
like
the
core
of
the
document,
will
be
like
simply
like
a
collection
of
these
descriptions
of
the
options
and
then
like
it
then
like
it's
just
a
collection
right,
so
there
isn't
necessarily
like
any
structure
there
right.
C
So
we
can
just
add
add
like
these
sections
as
needed,
but
then
they
would
kind
of
like
almost
be
like
this,
like
ways
of
structuring
that,
through
like
collections
of
tables
right
so
right
now
we
only
have
one
or
we
we
have.
We
have
two.
C
We
have
like
this
recommended
compiler
options
that
we
have
the
discouraged,
compiler
options
right,
but
but
then
then
like
going
forward
instead
of
having
like
maybe
it's,
we
have
like
the
recommended
compiler
options,
or
maybe
we
want
to
rename
that
to
like,
like
Cross
or
like
you
know,
well
supported
compiler
options
or
whatever,
because
these
are
the
ones
that
are
supported
by
multiple
compilers.
C
But
then
you
just
have
another
table
there
for
the
clang,
all
the
options
GCC
only
options,
even
even
like
platform,
specific
options,
but
it's
still
like
only
described
in
one
place
right.
So
the
option
itself
is
only
described
in
one
place.
I.
E
I
think
having
the
option,
the
primary
description
in
one
place
is
good,
no
matter
no
matter
what
and
I
would
argue
that
the
document
already
is
is
heading
that
direction.
The
front
part
is
about
specific
recommended
options.
You
don't
try
to
describe
those
in
detail
in
those
first,
two
tables
and
I
think
that's
wise,
but
that
does
suggest
I'm.
Sorry
exactly
so.
What
I
would
love
to?
E
What
I
would
love
to
see
is,
for
example,
table
one
mentions,
you
know
enable
Dash,
W
error,
okay
or
Dash
W
trampolines
click
somewhere
on
in
that
on
that
row
on
that
table
and
then
poof.
It
drops
you
down
to
this
section
that
describes
that
table
entry
in
detail.
C
And
we
we
don't
necessarily
need
to
like
structure
those
like
where
you
actually
have
that
deeper
description
of
the
compiler
options
too
much,
because
those
are
already
those
are
just
their
own.
Their
own
tiny
sections
right,
but
but
we
kind
of
want
to
have,
like
some
kind
of
you
know,
overview
into,
like
which
options
are
interesting
from
a
different,
different
perspective
right.
So
maybe
so
maybe
I'm
just
thinking
that
that
maybe
it
doesn't
like
even
make
sense
to
say
that
we
should
like
split
this
up.
C
H
Options
like
like
I
think
what
he's
referring
to
like,
for
example,
what's
the
the
assertations
I
forget
my
Flags
I'm
on
a
lot
of
cold
medication,
the.
H
E
Yeah
so
so
how's
this,
let
me,
let's
use
a
specific
one:
f-stack
protector,
okay,
okay,
all
right,
basically
I
mean
and
there's
actually
several
variations
of
Stack
protector
up
at
the
top
there's
a
list
of,
and
that's
a
compile
time
one.
So
it's
in
table
two
in
this
particular
case.
It's
saying:
hey
turn
on
f-stack
protector
protector,
strong,
okay,
but
all
it
does
is
there's
a
very,
very
short
description
in
it.
E
Okay,
and
what
I'd
like
to
see
is
in
each
of
those
table
rows,
and
we
can
talk
about
exactly
how
to
format
it,
but
basically
be
a
hyper
to
link
from
that
table
entry
down
to
the
specific
section
about
that
particular
option:
flag.
There's
a
there's,
a
section
that
says
enable
runtime
checks
for
stack
base
buffer
overflows,
where
it
talks
about
f-stack,
protector,
strong
and
the
reason
I'm
I'm
thinking
it
might
be
better
to
link
to
specific
Flags
is
because
then
it
doesn't
really
matter
how
we
label
many
of
the
headings.
E
You
know
if
or
if
you
move
something
around,
if
you
click
on
f-stack
protector
strong,
it
jumps
to
that
section
that
talks
about
f-stack
protector,
strong
and
explains
them
and
so
on,
and
then
and
so
really
for
the
most
part,
I
I'm
not
really
suggesting
a
change
in
structure
of
Doc
I'm
suggesting
a
ad
hyperlinks.
So
it's
really
easy
to
click
and
follow
the
material.
That's
there.
C
Yeah
I
I
think
that
makes
sense,
maybe
I'm
getting
a
little
bit
ahead
of
myself
right,
so
I'm
I'm,
trying
to
I'm
trying
to
still
understand
like
how
this,
like
the
things
that
we
want
to
add
how
they
fit
into
we
fit
into
that
structure
as
well,
but
maybe
like
the
hyperlinks,
are
a
way
to
kind
of
like
allow
us
to
have
different
ways
of
like
collecting
the
options
into
right
into
sets.
C
That
are
interesting
and
we
we
don't
need
to
maybe-
and
we
have
maybe
a
little
bit
more
flexibility
that
way,
because
because
then
you
could
say
that
maybe
we
want
to
have
a
table
with
you
know
all
the
options
for
GCC,
for
instance-
and
you
can
you
can
have
that.
But
but
it
doesn't
add
that
much
overhead,
because
we
still
it's
like
the
option-
is
still
described
in
one
place.
C
E
You
go
there,
you
go
I
mean
maybe
where
I
have
right
now
the
one
sentence
summary
I
think
can
be
helpful
Prime
for
reminding
people
what
the
option
is,
but
right
what
you've
done
is
all
the
details
tend
to
be
in
one
section,
and
you
often
tend
to
combine
the
compiler
Flags
together
that
are
related
I,
actually
prefer.
That
I
think
that
you
know
I
I
choose
f-stack
protector
for
a
reason,
because
in
fact
there's
a
number
of
variations
of
it
and
that's
not
unique
for
that.
E
So
you
know
basically
right
all
I'm
suggesting
is
ADD
hype,
I
had
names
in
certain
places
and
and
I
think
it'd
be
best
by
the
compiler
flags
and
then
link
to
them
from
the
other
sections
which
refer
to
them
and
then
it's
super
easy
to
find.
I
see
this
table
I'm
looking
at
table,
one
I
want
to
know
more
about
that
click.
I
see
it.
E
A
Foreign,
could
we
possibly
mock
something
up
just
to
see
how
that
would
work,
how's.
E
This
I
I
will
mock
up
I'll
mock
up
one
okay
and
you
can
laugh
at
it,
but
you
know
mocking
up.
One
is
true
one,
one
hyperlink
hyperlink
and
an
anchor,
and
then
we
can
see
what
it
looks
like
and.
G
A
H
E
Yeah,
why
don't
you
just
trying
to
merge
that
into
this
document?
I
think
will
be
a
challenge
so
if,
but,
if
you
could,
why
don't
you
grab
that
information
and
share
that
with
the
group
yep
you
can
just
post
I
mean
I?
Don't
we
don't
have
a
separate
group,
I,
don't
think,
but
I
I
don't
think.
There's
any
problem
with
posting
to
the
best
practices.
Working
group
mailing
list
say.
G
E
Okay,
so
I
Rose
running
out
of
time.
So
why
don't
we?
Why
don't
we
can
we
talk
about
kind
of
next
steps
because
I
mean
the
good
thing
here
is
that
this
is
actually
a
pretty
good
start,
whatever
it's
a
really
good
start
I.
Thank
you
again,
Erickson,
so
I
I
guess.
What
do
we
need
to
do?
Step
One
is
I.
Think
everyone
needs
to.
You
know,
review
for
I,
think
we've
already
kind
of
redone
a
little
bit
but
review
for
content.
Is
there
an
issue?
E
H
E
Okay,
excuse
me
and
the
the
idea
is
I
mean
everybody
has
their
own.
There
are
so
many
people
have
lists
something
like
this,
and
the
idea
is
to
merge
the
good
information
from
each.
So
we
have
a
really
solid.
Nobody
has
anything
as
good
as
this
list.
H
E
Okay,
that
that'd
be
great.
There
may
be
a
way
to
automate
some
of
that
so
yeah.
C
E
Yes,
okay,
I
mean
we
can
turn
that
off,
but
I
mean
there
are
advantages
to
following
certain
things.
So
if
it,
if
it's
just
hey,
insert
a
couple
blank
lines,
but
it
seems
to
be
not
helpful,
I
would
suggest
go
ahead
and
do
it.
But
if,
if
you
think
that
it's
it's
either
just
you
know
overwhelming
or
if
it's
overwhelming,
maybe
we
can
find
somebody
to
do
somebody
else
who
can
help
us
out
on
that
or.
E
Okay,
which
would
you
mind.
H
H
Yeah
so
GitHub
GitHub
has
a
super
linter
that
will
like
basically
check
all
PR's
and
it
works
on
a
bunch
of
languages.
It's
basically
a
bunch
of
linters
put
together
and
they
have
they
use
markdown
link,
so
basically
I
just
set
that
up
and
you
can
pass
it
a
configuration.
So
what
you
can
do
is,
if
you
do
it
correctly,
is
you
can
automate
it
all
so
that
when
you
check
out
the
repo
and
vs
code,
it'll
automatically
lint
it
for
you
like
it'll,
never
be.
H
Because
it'll
automate
it
on
vs
code,
like
you,
can
fix
it.
If
you
pass
it
a
configuration
of
what
you
want
to
it,
linted
it'll
automatically
lint
it
on
vs
code,
and
then
you
can
check
in
that
configuration
into
GitHub
so
that
essentially
all
your.
What
should
we
call
it
all?
Your
repos
are
the
same.
Well.
E
E
H
No
because
I
use
prettier,
but
what
I'm
arguing
is
that
whatever
configuration
he
uses
to
fix
it,
we
should
check
you
to
make
sure
that
that
configuration
is
enforced
in
the
repo.
That's
what
I'm
saying.
H
E
So
so
it's
so
I
think
what
you're
arguing
for
is
you're,
going
to
run
a
fixer
fix
up
the
markdown
lint
warnings
and
create
a
pull
request
that
fixes
them.
So
he
doesn't
have
to
yes.
E
A
Right
might
even
call
guys
thank
you,
Thomas
for
stepping
up
and
helping
us
run.
This
very
excited,
good
progress,
we'll
talk
to
you
all
soon,.