This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH][RFC] Add -fno-aggressive-loop-optimizations
- From: Richard Biener <rguenther at suse dot de>
- To: Gerald Pfeifer <gerald at pfeifer dot com>
- Cc: Pat Haugen <pthaugen at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com>, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>, hjl dot tools at gmail dot com
- Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2013 10:10:45 +0100 (CET)
- Subject: Re: [PATCH][RFC] Add -fno-aggressive-loop-optimizations
- References: <alpine.LNX.2.00.1301291140350.6889@zhemvz.fhfr.qr> <5109579A.7070004@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <alpine.LNX.2.00.1301310954300.6889@zhemvz.fhfr.qr> <alpine.LNX.2.00.1301311005460.6889@zhemvz.fhfr.qr> <alpine.LNX.2.00.1302170041320.1859@tuna.site>
On Sun, 17 Feb 2013, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> On Thu, 31 Jan 2013, Richard Biener wrote:
> > +<p>GCC now uses more a aggressive analysis to derive an upper bound for
>
> I think "a " should be omitted here.
Yes, that was fixed before commit.
> > +the number of iterations of loops using constraints imposed by language
> > +standards. This may cause non-conforming programs to no longer work as
> > +expected, such as SPEC CPU 2006 464.h264ref and 416.gamess. A new
> > +option, <code>-fno-aggressive-loop-optimizations</code>, was added
> > +to disable this aggressive analysis.</p>
>
> Personally I would reduce aggressiveness and omit "aggressive" in
> the last line above. :-)
Heh ... as you like ;)
Richard.