This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
- From: Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>
- To: David Edelsohn <dje at watson dot ibm dot com>
- Cc: Richard Henderson <rth at redhat dot com>, Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin dot org>,Zdenek Dvorak <rakdver at atrey dot karlin dot mff dot cuni dot cz>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2005 10:47:59 -0800
- Subject: Re: -funsafe-loop-optimizations
- Organization: CodeSourcery, LLC
- References: <20041231211409.GA22814@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz> <Pine.LNX.email@example.com> <20041231232501.GA16663@redhat.com> <200501010543.j015h3D33264@makai.watson.ibm.com>
David Edelsohn wrote:
While we discuss whether this should be the default or enabled at
any optimization level, can we agree that users should be able to assert
with a commandline option that they want less strict induction variable
semantics? I hope that we can move forward with an option to address
these performance regressions and allow users to request this optimzation
when they *do* want it, along the lines of the draft patch.
I would certainly agree. I think the first thing to do is to get a
patch that implements the semantics we want, in the aggressive mode;
then, we can decide whether we want it to be the default at some
optimization level or not.