This is the mail archive of the gcc@gcc.gnu.org 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: Porposal: Floating-Point Options

From: Robert Dewar <dewar at adacore dot com>
To: Mirza <mirza at seznam dot cz>
Cc: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 07:52:03 -0400
Subject: Re: Porposal: Floating-Point Options
References: <42AEEA99.70408@coyotegulch.com> <70B55A91-7E3E-40F2-AD14-85EC0979F3FB@dalecki.de> <d8o9vr$l8b$1@sea.gmane.org> <E31EDC5D-3231-435E-B122-555129B1827E@dalecki.de> <42B01623.4040206@coyotegulch.com> <F5D5A3B7-126D-4E82-B4EE-205947808D55@dalecki.de> <42B0BC69.5000702@coyotegulch.com> <42B1388B.3000109@seznam.cz>

Mirza wrote:

re: -ffp-damn-the-torpedoes-full-speed-ahead

If this option makes it into GCC, maybe it could be named -O3_unsafe. It would be (probably) default for 99% of projects out there to use this option alone (which is OK), so why not make their life easier. Just a thought.

mirza

I would avoid the words safe and unsafe, because

a) they are technical terms in the realm of high integrity programming
b) they are unnecessarily emotive (who wants unsafe code?)

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Porposal: Floating-Point Options
  - From: Mirza

References:
- Porposal: Floating-Point Options
  - From: Scott Robert Ladd
- Re: Porposal: Floating-Point Options
  - From: Marcin Dalecki
- Re: Porposal: Floating-Point Options
  - From: R Hill
- Re: Porposal: Floating-Point Options
  - From: Marcin Dalecki
- Re: Porposal: Floating-Point Options
  - From: Scott Robert Ladd
- Re: Porposal: Floating-Point Options
  - From: Marcin Dalecki
- Re: Porposal: Floating-Point Options
  - From: Scott Robert Ladd
- Re: Porposal: Floating-Point Options
  - From: Mirza

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