[PATCH GCC]Remove support for -funsafe-loop-optimizations

[Bin.Cheng]

On Sat, Jul 16, 2016 at 6:28 PM, NightStrike <nightstrike@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 1:07 PM, Bin Cheng <Bin.Cheng@arm.com> wrote:
>> Hi,
>> This patch removes support for -funsafe-loop-optimizations, as well as -Wunsafe-loop-optimizations.  By its name, this option does unsafe optimizations by assuming all loops must terminate and doesn't wrap.  Unfortunately, it's not as useful as expected because:
>> 1) Simply assuming loop must terminate isn't enough.  What we really want is to analyze scalar evolution and loop niter bound under such assumptions.  This option does nothing in this aspect.
>> 2) IIRC, this option generates bogus code for some common programs, that's why it's disabled by default even at Ofast level.
>>
>> After I sent patches handling possible infinite loops in both (scev/niter) analyzer and vectorizer, it's a natural step to remove such options in GCC.  This patch does so by deleting code for -funsafe-loop-optimizations, as well as -Wunsafe-loop-optimizations.  It also deletes the two now useless tests, while the option interface is preserved for backward compatibility purpose.
>
> There are a number of bugs opened against those options, including one
> that I just opened rather recently:
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71769
>
> but some go back far, in this case 9 years:
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34114
>
> If you are going to remove the options, you should address open bugs
> related to those options.
Hi,
Thanks for pointing me to these PRs, I will have a look at them.
IMHO, the old one reports weakness in loop niter analyzer, the issue
exists whether I remove unsafe-loop-optimization or not.  The new one
is a little bit trickier, I will put some comments on PR, and again,
the issue (if it is) is in niter analyzer which has nothing to do with
the option really.

Thanks,
bin