This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: basic-improvements merge status
- From: Jan Hubicka <jh at suse dot cz>
- To: Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr at integrable-solutions dot net>
- Cc: David Edelsohn <dje at watson dot ibm dot com>, Jan Hubicka <jh at suse dot cz>,Zack Weinberg <zack at codesourcery dot com>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org,libstdc++ at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 09:54:45 +0100
- Subject: Re: basic-improvements merge status
- References: <200212162226.RAA23850@makai.watson.ibm.com> <m3y96pghhf.fsf@uniton.integrable-solutions.net>
> David Edelsohn <dje@watson.ibm.com> writes:
>
> | >>>>> Jan Hubicka writes:
> |
> | >> #ifndef HAVE_SINF
> | >> float
> | >> sinf(float x)
> | >> {
> | >> return (float) sin(x);
> | >> }
> | >> #endif
> | >>
> | >> is being compiled as
> |
> | Jan> I think we can deal with -fno-builtin-fsin to avoid gcc from being
> | Jan> active on optimizing this.
> | Jan> The name sinf is reserved by C90 standard, so this is not valid C.
> |
> | Maybe libstdc++-v3/libmath/stubs.c should be compiled with
> | -fno-builtins.
>
> This is papering over broken assumptions made by the transformation.
>
> Moreover, not all functions are missing at the same time. So
> -fno-builtin will be overly pessimistic an assumption. There ought to
> be a way to tell the compiler which library function not to optimize.
-fno-builtin-sin does the trick.
Honza
>
> -- Gaby