This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: GCC 4.2.0 Status Report (2007-02-19)

On Wed, Feb 21, 2007 at 11:00:00PM +0100, Richard Guenther wrote:
> Of course the speed of a compiler is measured on testcases where
> speed matters - and this is usually FP code.  Now based on this reasoning
> we could (as CodeSourcery probably did) enable -fno-strict-aliasing by
> default, which fixes the class of 4.1.x bugs we are talking about.

I think we did something in the middle - we made the aliasing much
more conservative (maybe using one of your patches, even?) but without
completely disabling it.

But don't take my word too seriously here - I didn't do it, and I
don't really remember what happened.  I'm just making noise.

> Now, the realistic choices for 4.2.0 as I see them are, in order of my
> personal preference:
> 1) Ship 4.2.0 as is
> 2) Ship 4.2.0 with the aliasing fixes reverted
> 3) no more reasonable option.  Maybe don't ship 4.2.0 at all.
> so, I don't see backporting more patches or even re-branching as
> a real option.

I've been convinced of the same.  If we (GCC developers) shipped it
with the aliasing fixes reverted, I'm not sure quite what we
(CodeSourcery) would do with the result - but I bet we'd at least
consider reapplying them.

Daniel Jacobowitz

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]