This is the mail archive of the
gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: optimization/10189: pentium4 breaks suns libm code for __ieee754_pow(double x, double y)
- From: "David O'Brien" <obrien at freebsd dot org>
- To: nobody at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Cc: gcc-prs at gcc dot gnu dot org,
- Date: 29 Mar 2003 03:56:01 -0000
- Subject: Re: optimization/10189: pentium4 breaks suns libm code for __ieee754_pow(double x, double y)
- Reply-to: "David O'Brien" <obrien at freebsd dot org>
The following reply was made to PR optimization/10189; it has been noted by GNATS.
From: "David O'Brien" <obrien at freebsd dot org>
To: Alexander Leidinger <Alexander at Leidinger dot net>
Cc: gcc-gnats at gcc dot gnu dot org, freebsd-current at freebsd dot org, gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org,
gcc-prs at gcc dot gnu dot org, nobody at gcc dot gnu dot org, ljrittle at gcc dot gnu dot org
Subject: Re: optimization/10189: pentium4 breaks suns libm code for __ieee754_pow(double x, double y)
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 19:46:27 -0800
On Wed, Mar 26, 2003 at 10:09:34PM +0100, Alexander Leidinger wrote:
> And trust me, as long as gcc ships with a description of other
> optimizations beneath "-O" there will be (clueless or smart... does it
> really matter here?) people which will try those optimizations on
> everything
Not to mention bullshit ones like "-O9". I see that all the time. What
do these poeple think they are buying with that?????
GCC should stop accepting -O values higher than what does anything.