This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
- From: Zdenek Dvorak <rakdver at atrey dot karlin dot mff dot cuni dot cz>
- To: Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>
- Cc: David Edelsohn <dje at watson dot ibm dot com>,Richard Henderson <rth at redhat dot com>,Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin dot org>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2005 23:30:23 +0100
- Subject: Re: -funsafe-loop-optimizations
- References: <20041231211409.GA22814@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz> <Pine.LNX.email@example.com> <20041231232501.GA16663@redhat.com> <200501010543.j015h3D33264@makai.watson.ibm.com> <41DAE4DF.firstname.lastname@example.org>
> 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.
the patch (not final version, but usable for testing) is already