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: Setting -frounding-math by default


On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 12:35 AM, Joseph S. Myers
<joseph@codesourcery.com> wrote:
> - Show quoted text -
> On Mon, 9 Mar 2009, Steven Bosscher wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 12:24 AM, Joseph S. Myers
>> <joseph@codesourcery.com> wrote:
>> > ?The defaults are deliberate decisions
>> > (and as such the adoption of those decisions cannot meaningfully be
>> > considered a regression: it's not a bug but a feature), but are more
>> > likely to change in the other direction from what you want.
>>
>> I wish the same "not a bug but a feature" measure would be applied to
>> some of the "optimization" regressions (those in Bugzilla and those
>> holding up big cleanups).
>
> I hope we judge optimizations based on whether they seem to improve (or
> not make worse) important benchmarks on important targets rather than the
> impossible standard of not making *any* code worse. ?(And cleanups
> likewise on not making a range of benchmarks worse.)
>
> A particular case made worse may still be a regression, but it could quite
> reasonably be a P4 or P5 regression depending on how much code is
> affected.

It's pretty hard to qualify them as more or less important.  So unless
we get completely swamped in P2s like that I'd rather stay to the
current policy.  A more reasonable thing would be to downgrade
optimization regressions once they shipped in a stable release, thus
only make optimization regressions against the previous release
series >P3.

Richard.

> --
> - Show quoted text -
> Joseph S. Myers
> joseph@codesourcery.com


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