This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: changing "configure" to default to "gcc -g -O2 -fwrapv ..."
- From: Vincent Lefevre <vincent+gcc at vinc17 dot org>
- To: Robert Dewar <dewar at adacore dot com>
- Cc: Richard Kenner <kenner at vlsi1 dot ultra dot nyu dot edu>, autoconf-patches at gnu dot org, bernds_cb1 at t-online dot de, bug-gnulib at gnu dot org, ebb9 at byu dot net, eggert at cs dot ucla dot edu, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, gdr at integrable-solutions dot net, pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu, richard dot guenther at gmail dot com
- Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2006 17:24:22 +0100
- Subject: Re: changing "configure" to default to "gcc -g -O2 -fwrapv ..."
- References: <200612310042.kBV0g5pt027400@localhost.localdomain> <45970D3D.1090700@adacore.com> <20061231120933.GS32297@ay.vinc17.org> <4597B5F0.5050504@adacore.com> <10612311408.AA19449@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu> <20061231144821.GW32297@ay.vinc17.org> <4597D240.90501@adacore.com> <20061231154658.GY32297@ay.vinc17.org> <4597DEE9.1070809@adacore.com>
On 2006-12-31 11:01:45 -0500, Robert Dewar wrote:
> The issues are
>
> a) are these optimizations valuable? (and if so, in all cases,
> or only in practice for loop invariants?).
Even if they aren't valuable today, you don't know what will happen
in future code. So, there's another issue: is it OK to encourage bad
practice (possibly as a side effect by making a difference between
loop invariants and other cases)?
--
Vincent Lefèvre <vincent@vinc17.org> - Web: <http://www.vinc17.org/>
100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: <http://www.vinc17.org/blog/>
Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / Arenaire project (LIP, ENS-Lyon)