[RFC] Fix PR28684
Michael Matz
matz@suse.de
Tue Nov 14 21:03:00 GMT 2006
Hi,
On Tue, 14 Nov 2006, Roger Sayle wrote:
> I'm trying to constructively work towards some kind of resolution. To me
> the fundamental issue is why not use "-ffast-math"?
>
> Some of the arguments have focused on "because I don't understand which
> transformations that enables". The ignorance of users is not normally a
> great motivation for change.
Well, actually it is. Because if users are confused chance is that also
gcc developers are confused. See e.g. all the transformations in the past
which were put under {unsafe,fast}_math_* while they weren't necessary
there.
For developers it's much easier to have very fine-graned control over
exactly what transformations can be enabled or not, it's not a matter of
confusion but control.
So internally we actually don't want to have a unsafe_math flag at all,
but instead a collection of flags precisely mapping to a defined set of
transformations done under them. Any user option then maps to a subset of
those and could also be clearly documented. I.e. exactly like fast_math
was split into different flags.
So, I guess my claim is, that also splitting unsafe_math into a set of
flags reflecting each individual type of transformation would be
worthwhile from user perspective _and_ gcc developer perspective. Yes, as
you say, all of those have the common property that they will lead to
non-bit-identical results, but that doesn't mean immediately that they
have to be controled by the same flag.
So far about my meta opinion ;-)
Ciao,
Michael.
More information about the Gcc-patches
mailing list