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: 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.4.60.0412311649170.6844@dberlin.org> <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.

--
Mark Mitchell
CodeSourcery, LLC
mark@codesourcery.com
(916) 791-8304

Follow-Ups:
- Re: -funsafe-loop-optimizations
  - From: Robert Dewar
- Re: -funsafe-loop-optimizations
  - From: Zdenek Dvorak

References:
- Re: -funsafe-loop-optimizations
  - From: David Edelsohn

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