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: dewar at gnat 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 20:28:58 -0300
- Cc: neil at daikokuya dot demon dot co dot uk, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, moshier at moshier dot ne dot mediaone dot net, torvalds at transmeta dot com, tprince at computer dot org
- Organization: GCC Team, Red Hat
- References: <20010730231051.F35C3F2B53@nile.gnat.com>
On Jul 30, 2001, dewar@gnat.com wrote:
> <<I am serious. The preprocessor should protect individual parentheses
> from becoming consecutive by introducing whitespace. We should tell:
>>>
> Sometimes I must say that people seem to work hard to dream up the most
> infeasible and ugly syntactical ideas that one could possibly imagine :-)
:-)
Would you prefer
__extension__ __attribute__ ((optimize=0)) (a*b) +
__extension__ __attribute__ ((optimize=0)) (a*c)
? :-)
I'd much rather write ((a*b)) + ((a*c)), which will even compile with
other compilers, and might be picked up in a future revision of the C
and C++ Standards.
--
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