This is the mail archive of the 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

Robert Dewar wrote:
Mark Mitchell wrote:

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.

I agree except that "less strict induction variable semantics" is
not an acceptable semantic description, and I think it is essential
to have a clear simple semantic description of what this means.

So to me, the first step is a spec that describes "the semantics we

A patch is the second step, not the first!

Fair enough.

Mark Mitchell
CodeSourcery, LLC
(916) 791-8304

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