This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: What is acceptable for -ffast-math? (Was: associative law in combine)
- To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds at transmeta dot com>
- Subject: Re: What is acceptable for -ffast-math? (Was: associative law in combine)
- From: Alexandre Oliva <aoliva at redhat dot com>
- Date: 30 Jul 2001 18:42:46 -0300
- Cc: <dewar at gnat dot com>, <moshier at moshier dot ne dot mediaone dot net>, <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>, <tprince at computer dot org>
- Organization: GCC Team, Red Hat
- References: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0107292123290.1157-100000@penguin.transmeta.com>
On Jul 30, 2001, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@transmeta.com> wrote:
> In C, you can't reasonably use the Fortran "parenthesis are significant"
> approach - the way the C pre-processor works you often have lots of extra
> parenthesis for that reason.
But we could use new tokens, say (( )) and ((( ))) to mark expressions
the preprocessor and the compiler shouldn't muck up with. It would
probably be tricky to get this right in a grammar, but the integrated
preprocessor probably makes it easier. The separate preprocessor
would have to insert blanks between consecutive ( tokens generated by
preprocessing to ensure they're not handled as a single token (or at
least marked as optimization barriers, since it'll probably be more
reasonable to keep them as separate tokens.
--
Alexandre Oliva Enjoy Guarana', see http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Red Hat GCC Developer aoliva@{cygnus.com, redhat.com}
CS PhD student at IC-Unicamp oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist *Please* write to mailing lists, not to me