This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [RFA] Further HONOR_[S]NANS improvements.
- From: Richard Henderson <rth at redhat dot com>
- To: Toon Moene <toon at moene dot indiv dot nluug dot nl>
- Cc: gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2002 17:23:09 -0700
- Subject: Re: [RFA] Further HONOR_[S]NANS improvements.
- References: <3D4989B5.7A5CD31A@moene.indiv.nluug.nl>
On Thu, Aug 01, 2002 at 09:19:17PM +0200, Toon Moene wrote:
> Obviously, I'm not going to invent yet another
> this-optimization-is-not-prohibited-in-Fortran flag.
>
> Can't these decisions be enforced via language hooks ?
They could be, yes. Would it make sense to have HONOR_NANS
etc be a hook, for which the default implementation is as
at present? Then Fortran could say that HONOR_SIGNED_ZERO
and whatnot is always false.
Alternately, you *could* introduce another flag variable
(and not necessarily hook it up to a command-line switch)
that controls signed zeros.
r~