This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: What is acceptable for -ffast-math? (Was: associative law in combine)
- To: Theodore Papadopoulo <Theodore dot Papadopoulo at sophia dot inria dot fr>
- Subject: Re: What is acceptable for -ffast-math? (Was: associative law in combine)
- From: Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr at codesourcery dot com>
- Date: 01 Aug 2001 18:14:54 +0200
- Cc: Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr at codesourcery dot com>, dewar at gnat dot com, amylaar at redhat dot com, aoliva at redhat dot com, 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: CodeSourcery, LLC
- References: <200108011555.f71Ft4q07786@mururoa.inria.fr>
Theodore Papadopoulo <Theodore.Papadopoulo@sophia.inria.fr> writes:
| firstname.lastname@example.org said:
| > That doesn't mean I don't want optimization. I do love optimization.
| > By optimization, I really mean optimization.
| No by optimisation, you mean mathematically provable safe optimisation and
No, I do mean a transformation which does not dramatically transmute
Where did you get the idea that I meant "mathematically provable safe
We're talking here of transformations which we do know able to
drastically change the results.
Going into abstract considerations like NP-completness is beside the