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: "Geert Bosch" <bosch at adacore dot com>
- Cc: "Daniel Berlin" <dberlin at dberlin dot org>, "Paul Eggert" <eggert at cs dot ucla dot edu>, autoconf-patches at gnu dot org, bug-gnulib at gnu dot org, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2007 11:04:22 +0100
- Subject: Re: changing "configure" to default to "gcc -g -O2 -fwrapv ..."
- References: <200612300047.kBU0lFwk014817@localhost.localdomain> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <22C62FE7-259E-43F7-9DB5-5F3A9CF574E2@adacore.com>
On 1/1/07, Geert Bosch <email@example.com> wrote:
On Dec 31, 2006, at 19:13, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> Note the distinct drop in performance across almost all the benchmarks
> on Dec 30, including popular programs like bzip2 and gzip.
To my eyes, the specint 2000 mean went UP by about 1% for the
base -O3 compilation. The peak enabled more unrolling, which
is helped by additional range information provided by absence
So, I'd say this run would suggest enabling -fwrapv for
at least -O1 and -O2. Also, note that we never have
focussed on performance with -fwrapv, and it is quite
likely there is quite some improvement possible.
I'd really like using -fwrapv by default for -O, -O[s12].
The benefit of many programs moving from "undefined semantics"
to "implementation-defined semantics, overflow wraps like in
old compilers" far outweighs even an average performance loss
of 2% as seen in specfp.
I would support the proposal to enable -fwrapv for -O, but
not for -O2 as that is supposed to be "optimize for speed" and
as -O3 is not widely used to optimize for speed (in fact it may
make code slower). I'm undecided for -Os but care less about it.