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: Carlo Wood <carlo at alinoe dot com>
- Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2001 04:04:10 +0200
- Cc: Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr at codesourcery dot com>, Theodore Papadopoulo <Theodore dot Papadopoulo at sophia dot inria dot fr>, 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, tprince at computer dot org
When I see a thread as long as this one, I always think:
here is some inefficient "communication" going on :p.
Allow me to give my 0.02.
> > Changing 0.125 to 0.0 is a dramatic change.
Some may think that dramatic changes are acceptable.
When an optimization results in
99% of practical cases it is faster,
0.99% of practical cases it is slower and
0.01% of the cases it results in a dramatic change;
then that might be acceptable because the number
of cases were the difference is not dramatic and also
not close to the normal FP accuracy is 0%.
A dramatic change will be noted. Developers have to watch
for overflow and underflow already anyway.
My definition of what is unacceptable is when an optimization
causes possibly errors for example in the 32th bit, while the
expected accuracy is 64 bit...
Imho, this difference (dramatic versus subtile) is would you
tried to discuss, but failed to make clear.
Carlo Wood <firstname.lastname@example.org>