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: changing "configure" to default to "gcc -g -O2 -fwrapv ..."

On 1/1/07, Richard Kenner <> wrote:
> the seemingly prevalent attitude "but it is undefined; but it is not
> C" is the opinion of the majority of middle-end maintainers.

Does anybody DISAGREE with that "attitude"?  It isn't valid C to assume that
signed overflow wraps.  I've heard nobody argue that it is.  The question
is how far we go in supporting existing code that's broken in this way.

I don't disagree with that attitude, I even strongly agree. We support broken code by options like -fno-strict-aliasing and -fwrapv. I see this discussion as a way to prioritize work we need to do anyway: annotate operations with their overflow behavior (like creating new tree codes WRAPPING_PLUS_EXPR), clean up existing code to make it more obvious where rely on what semantics, add more testcases for corner-cases and document existing (standard-conformant) behavior more explicitly.

Note that we had/have a similar discussion like this (what's a valid/useful
optimization in the users perspective) on the IEEE math front - see the
hunge thread about -ffast-math, -funsafe-math-optimizations and the
proposal to split it into -fassociative-math and -freciprocal-math.  We also
have infrastructure work to do there, like laying grounds to implement
proper contraction support.


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