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: kenner at vlsi1 dot ultra dot nyu dot edu (Richard Kenner)
- To: eggert at cs dot ucla dot edu
- Cc: autoconf-patches at gnu dot org, bug-gnulib at gnu dot org, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2006 20:59:36 EST
- Subject: Re: changing "configure" to default to "gcc -g -O2 -fwrapv ..."
- References: <200612300047.kBU0lFwk014817@localhost.localdomain> <45963E6D.5070203@t-online.de> <10612301301.AA14129@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu> <871wmht4ab.fsf@penguin.cs.ucla.edu> <10612302258.AA24598@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu> <87lkkosz1n.fsf@penguin.cs.ucla.edu> <45970416.80407@adacore.com> <8764bssikm.fsf@penguin.cs.ucla.edu> <571f6b510612310047r3b7ef9acl4a0ab082e88e17a3@mail.gmail.com> <87bqlkmm3r.fsf@penguin.cs.ucla.edu> <4aca3dc20612310641n78e8898euf1c003444e2303eb@mail.gmail.com> <45980964.7000406@gnu.org> <45980C39.7030404@adacore.com> <87mz53lefb.fsf@penguin.cs.ucla.edu>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2006-12/msg00607.html
>
> If this doesn't count as "optimization of loop invariants"
> then what would count?
One where the induction variable was updated additively, not
multiplicatively. When we talk about normal loop optimizations,
that's what we mean. I agree that the optimization in this case is of
questionable value.