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: Linus Torvalds <torvalds at transmeta dot com>
- Subject: Re: What is acceptable for -ffast-math? (Was: associative law in combine)
- From: Phil Edwards <pedwards at disaster dot jaj dot com>
- Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2001 15:07:55 -0400
- Cc: dewar at gnat dot com, tim at hollebeek dot com, Theodore dot Papadopoulo at sophia dot inria dot fr, amylaar at redhat dot com, aoliva at redhat dot com, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, gdr at codesourcery dot com, moshier at moshier dot ne dot mediaone dot net, tprince at computer dot org
To contribute, or not to contribute, that is the question
Whether it is better in the long run
To continue to post messages to this thread
Which goeth round in circles, further and further off-topic.
Or to stop posting to it
And allow silly arguments to go unchallenged
Or on the other hand to stop reading it altogether
And by ignoring it, end it.
(apologies to Andrew Rilstone)
I'm just sort of wondering if there's going to be a patch posted here or on
gcc-patches, something in the way of a concrete suggestion. Thus far there's
been some name calling, lots of heat, very little light. Maybe someone
would care to summarize the topic (e.g., are we restricting the discussion
to a particular platform, what exactly is the source of disagreement, etc)?
If I recall my flamewar protocol correctly, the next step is ad hominem
attacks. Those are always entertaining.
...I wrote "exactly" in a FP thread... that was a mistake...
Would I had phrases that are not known, utterances that are strange, in
new language that has not been used, free from repetition, not an utterance
which has grown stale, which men of old have spoken.
- anonymous Egyptian scribe, c.1700 BC