Re: changing "configure" to default to "gcc -g -O2 -fwrapv ..."

[Paul Eggert <eggert at CS dot UCLA dot EDU>]

> On 12/29/06, Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org> wrote:
>> 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.

The issue does seem to deserve their attention, yes.

"Richard Guenther" <richard.guenther@gmail.com> writes:

> But first produce some data please.  I only remember one
> case where the program was at fault

I'm not sure what data you're asking for.  The argument here
is about whether these programs are "at fault" in the first
place.

Let's put it this way.  If one thinks that gcc -O2 should
support only minimal C99 semantics and should not support
Annex H LIA-1 wrapping semantics, then all the
wrapv-assuming programs are obviously "at fault", so why
would data collection make any difference?  At most you'll
find "faulty" programs, and they won't count.

For example, GCC itself assumes wrapv semantics internally,
but according to the -fwrapv opponents GCC is obviously "at
fault" here and should be fixed, so that shouldn't count,
right?  (If that's the way the data will be collected, I
think I know how things will turn out.  :-)