Re: Not a bug, but a big trouble indeed

[Jeffrey A Law <law at cygnus dot com>]

  In message <34D62CF0.3B1104FC@shellus.com>you write:
  > >   > >Maybe the way to go would be some kind of way to specify in the asm
  > >   > >that it alters *state of the entire machine* in an unknown way.
  > >   >
  > >   > But you don't want to change the entire machine, but only relatively
  > >   > small pieces ot it.  In this case, FP operations on either side of
  > >   > the asm may not be combined, but no register state is changed, and
  > >   > int operations may continue to be combined.
  > > My thought was make it work, then tune it later :-)  Certainly wiping
  > > just FP values from the hash table would work better :-)
  > 
  > Actually, you may not necessarily want to wipe out fp values from your hash
  > table.  You may want to add a specifier to the key which detailed what was
  > known about the fp state of the machine during the computation.  I say this
  > because, were such a capability available in gcc, I know I would have used it
  > like so:
Well, I'd approach this in the same manner -- first get something that works,
then iterate on it until it's not worth improving anymore.

And, yes, we'd have to assume that calls clobber the rounding mode... Hmmmm...

jeff