This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: [RFC] Fix PR28684

From: Clint Whaley <whaley at cs dot utsa dot edu>
To: whaley at cs dot utsa dot edu, rguenther at suse dot de, ERES at il dot ibm dot com
Cc: ZAKS at il dot ibm dot com, whaley at cs dot utsa dot edu, roger at eyesopen dot com, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, DORIT at il dot ibm dot com
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2006 09:32:12 -0600
Subject: Re: [RFC] Fix PR28684
References: <OFE1314467.33CACBB1-ONC2257228.004F50A8-C2257228.004F6098@il.ibm.com> <200611161518.kAGFIGel010978@pandora2.cs.utsa.edu>

Guys,

>I wasn't sure if general strength reduction was still controlled by the
>flag, but if it is, we need to mention it, and again the user can 

Just to mention, if we need strength reduction, the definition that would
make me happiest would be that no new flops are introduced by it, but
some may be removed.  Then, only the people doing things like NaN traps
need worry.  I.e., 2.0*a <--> a+a and a+b-b -> a would be OK, but
3*a -> a+a+a would not be allowed . . .

Cheers,
Clint

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [RFC] Fix PR28684
  - From: Revital1 Eres

References:
- Re: [RFC] Fix PR28684
  - From: Revital1 Eres
- Re: [RFC] Fix PR28684
  - From: Clint Whaley

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]