This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: changing "configure" to default to "gcc -g -O2 -fwrapv ..."
- From: "Richard Guenther" <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>
- To: "Florian Weimer" <fw at deneb dot enyo dot de>, "Andrew Pinski" <pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, autoconf-patches at gnu dot org, "Paul Eggert" <eggert at cs dot ucla dot edu>, bug-gnulib at gnu dot org, "Gabriel Dos Reis" <gdr at integrable-solutions dot net>, "Ian Lance Taylor" <iant at google dot com>, "Andrew Pinski" <pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu dot integrable-solutions dot net>, dnovillo at redhat dot com
- Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2006 22:57:21 +0100
- Subject: Re: changing "configure" to default to "gcc -g -O2 -fwrapv ..."
- References: <200612291732.kBTHWNkC024013@localhost.localdomain> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <20061229215223.GA25381@nevyn.them.org>
On 12/29/06, Daniel Jacobowitz <email@example.com> wrote:
On Fri, Dec 29, 2006 at 10:44:02PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> (BTW, I would be somewhat disappointed if this had to be pampered over
> on the autoconf side. If the GNU project needs -fwrapv for its own
> software by default, this should be reflected in the compiler's
I absolutely agree. My impression is that the current situation is a
disagreement between (some of, at least) the GCC developers, and
someone who can commit to autoconf; but I think it would be a very
bad choice for the GNU project to work around itself. If we can't
come to an agreement on the list, please ask the Steering Committee.
This is a textbook example of what they're for.
But first produce some data please. I only remember one case where
the program was at fault and not gcc from the transition from 4.0 to 4.1
compiling all of SUSE Linux 10.1 (barring those we don't recognized