This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: ACATS c460008 and VRP (was: Bootstrap failure on trunk: x86_64-linux-gnu)
- From: kenner at vlsi1 dot ultra dot nyu dot edu (Richard Kenner)
- To: laurent at guerby dot net
- Cc: aph at redhat dot com, charlet at adacore dot com, drow at false dot org, ebotcazou at adacore dot com, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, law at redhat dot com, pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu
- Date: Wed, 05 Dec 2007 16:19:53 EST
- Subject: Re: ACATS c460008 and VRP (was: Bootstrap failure on trunk: x86_64-linux-gnu)
- References: <17400.42579.162536.967995@zapata.pink> <200602281206.32138.ebotcazou@adacore.com> <1141145312.2618.57.camel@localhost.localdomain> <200602281842.22672.ebotcazou@adacore.com> <1141166437.2618.103.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20060228235946.GA12161@nevyn.them.org> <1141214164.24449.52.camel@pc.site> <1141252514.3223.101.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1141256224.24449.64.camel@pc.site>
> Richard, Arnaud, could you check amongst GNAT experts if for such types
> (non power of two modulus), it's not worth enabling overflow checks by
> default now that we have VRP doing non trivial optimisations? People
> using non power of two modulus are not caring for performance anyway, so
> having a compliant implementation by default won't harm.
I don't think that either of us are the best people to ask, but my sense
is that it's not a great idea to have the default overflow handling differ
between types. For one thing, what option would then disable overflow
checking for those types?
-gnato is required for ACATS tests because you need -gnato for RM compliance.