gcc 2.96 optimization bug on RedHat7.0/alpha
Andrew A. Gill
superluser@mail.isc.rit.edu
Wed Apr 18 09:56:00 GMT 2001
[does gcc-bugs still want to be cc'd?]
On Wed, 18 Apr 2001, Uncle George antagonized the horn and now...
> I'm sorry that u believe this but i believe that the results from
>
> -O0 == -O1 == -O2 == -O3 == -O4
>
> should all be the same. If any one of them failes to be equal, then
> the compiler failed to produce the correct code to derive the correct
> results. It is particularly onerous if the failure is not reported in
> any fashion.
Does anyone remember the old PBS instructional television sketch where
the guy decides that he hates rules and wishes that they were never
invented and then he falls asleep and he dreams that he's in a world
without rules and he's run over by a car or something? [*]
Anyways, we're talking about a programming language. It has a formal
syntax and grammar. Like English. I would say that English has many
problems--so does C. English has no separate you (pl.), for example.
Does this mean that English is buggy?
We're dealing with documented results, here. This means that the burden
is on you. If you don't like C's implementation, try another language.
Lord knows that there are others out there that many people find much
better than C.
> It is never perfectly OK to produce bad code. AND i dont care what
> standard one uses to justify this 'OK'ness.
So stop writing bad code! <g>
[*] Where was I? Oh, yeah--I like TV.
--
|Andrew A. Gill |I posted to Silent-Tristero and|
|<superluser@mail.rit.edu> |all I got was this stupid sig! |
|alt.tv.simpsons CBG-FAQ author | |
| (Report all obscene mail to Le Maitre Pots)|
|< http://trystero.rh.rit.edu > Temporary sig: --
FORTRAN? The syntactically incorrect statement "DO 10 I = 1.10" will
parse and generate code creating a variable, DO10I, as follows:
"DO10I = 1.10" If that doesn't terrify you, it should.
- fortune database
More information about the Gcc-bugs
mailing list