This is the mail archive of the gcc@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: -fstrict-fp-semantics (was Re: numerical instability and estimate-probability)


> > Can we adopt an option, say -fstrict-fp-semantics, that means that fp
> > results are not changed *one bit* by any optimization?

> I am not quite sure how to reach it w/o important penalty in the perofrmance.

I presume that there is so little time in gcc spent in fp that the
performance penalty wouldn't matter.

> Even if we jump into 80bit spills (I was trying to implement it, but never got
> it working, unfortuantely), we still need to disable any load/store propagation
> that may elliminate the truncate.
> This is quite nasty.

I don't believe that this is necessary.  If you have an expression that's lifted
above a loop, then lift it as an extended.

>  It may be reached by making every FP memory reference
> volatile, but that sounds crazy too.

This is definitely not necessary.

> Also it won't solve the problem with bootstrap, as stage1 compiler may
> be non-gcc one and still may produce different result :(

It adds another iteration, which is unpleasant.

Brad


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]