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: -funsafe-loop-optimizations

From: Robert Dewar <dewar at adacore dot com>
To: Giovanni Bajo <giovannibajo at libero dot it>
Cc: Zdenek Dvorak <rakdver at atrey dot karlin dot mff dot cuni dot cz>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Sat, 01 Jan 2005 19:35:20 -0500
Subject: Re: -funsafe-loop-optimizations
References: <20041231211409.GA22814@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz> <035f01c4f044$623cf160$4e422597@bagio> <20050101211056.GA27013@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz> <03bb01c4f05f$5d430850$4e422597@bagio>

Giovanni Bajo wrote:

Yes, this is why we could have a switch to disable generation of the runtime
checks. Still, I think that the overhead of runtime checks done once per loop
and "cold" code size increase are still bearable. I hope you will give it a
try.


As always, the issue is not whether these increases are bearable, the issue
is whether the increases are worth while. Seems dubious in this case. Has
anyone actually seen a legitimate case (other than a test program) that
expects an infinite loop for this kind of case?

Follow-Ups:
- Re: -funsafe-loop-optimizations
  - From: Giovanni Bajo

References:
- Re: -funsafe-loop-optimizations
  - From: Giovanni Bajo
- Re: -funsafe-loop-optimizations
  - From: Zdenek Dvorak
- Re: -funsafe-loop-optimizations
  - From: Giovanni Bajo

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