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: Alexandre Oliva <aoliva at redhat dot com>
- Subject: Re: What is acceptable for -ffast-math? (Was: associative law in combine)
- From: Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr at codesourcery dot com>
- Date: 31 Jul 2001 04:29:50 +0200
- Cc: Joern Rennecke <amylaar at redhat dot com>, torvalds at transmeta dot com (Linus Torvalds), 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: CodeSourcery, LLC
- References: <200107310208.f6V285508812@phal.cambridge.redhat.com> <or7kwpbzy7.fsf@feijoada.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>
Alexandre Oliva <aoliva@redhat.com> writes:
| On Jul 30, 2001, Joern Rennecke <amylaar@redhat.com> wrote:
|
| >> But we could use new tokens, say (( )) and ((( ))) to mark expressions
| >> the preprocessor and the compiler shouldn't muck up with. It would
|
| > It's hard to distinguish an opening (( from two opening (s that
| > are closes separately, e.g.:
|
| > a*((b+c)*d)
|
| Indeed. That's why I suggested to only mark such duplicate
| parentheses as optimization barriers, at the end of my message.
I'm puzzled to see "optimization" used to designate a transformation
applying dubious rules to transmute the meaning of a computation :-(
-- Gaby