This is the mail archive of the
gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: optimization bug in g77
- To: law at cygnus dot com, mark at markmitchell dot com
- Subject: Re: optimization bug in g77
- From: mrs at wrs dot com (Mike Stump)
- Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 18:57:20 -0800
- Cc: egcs-bugs at cygnus dot com, toon at moene dot indiv dot nluug dot nl
> Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1999 15:41:05 -0800
> From: Mark Mitchell <mark@markmitchell.com>
> I think it's a good deal more responsible to invert your suggestion:
> disable the (known to be broken) optimization by default, and then
> provide an option to *enable* it. Thus, the "power users", who want
> maximum speed, can know what they're getting into: the documentation
> will say explicitly that the option is, in general, known to be
> unsafe.
No, I prefer to ship a compiler with a known bug in it when
optimizing, then to introduce a flag that is documented as being
dangerous and known to generate bad code. This is non-negotiable.
Only flags that last 10 years should ever be put in, because they
will.
All compilers have bugs, all compilers ship with bugs, this is just a
fact of life. The `badness' of the bug drives the resources to fix
it, if it is unfixed, it means it isn't that bad. (fatalist
viewpoint) If it is so bad, then it should just be disabled.