This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: What is acceptable for -ffast-math? (Was: associative law in combine)
- To: Alexandre Oliva <aoliva at redhat dot com>
- Subject: Re: What is acceptable for -ffast-math? (Was: associative law in combine)
- From: Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr at codesourcery dot com>
- Date: 31 Jul 2001 05:25:30 +0200
- Cc: Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr at codesourcery dot com>, dewar at gnat dot com, amylaar at redhat dot com, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, moshier at moshier dot ne dot mediaone dot net, torvalds at transmeta dot com, tprince at computer dot org
- Organization: CodeSourcery, LLC
- References: <20010731024546.2A8E2F2B53@nile.gnat.com> <fl7kwp950m.fsf@jambon.cmla.ens-cachan.fr> <orelqxaiqb.fsf@feijoada.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>
Alexandre Oliva <aoliva@redhat.com> writes:
| On Jul 31, 2001, Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr@codesourcery.com> wrote:
|
| > dewar@gnat.com writes:
| > | > ({a+b;})*c
| > |
| > | OK, I admit, the (( .. )) suggestion was not the most awful one after all :-)
|
| > :-)
|
| > The idea that GCC should require users to jump through hoops, using
| > non-standard constructs in order to have their programs interpreted
| > according to standard rules is just frightening.
|
| Aren't we talking about -ffast-math?
Certainly. The point is that an optimization should transmute the
meaning of program.
-- Gaby