-funsafe-loop-optimizations

[Robert Dewar]

Paul Schlie wrote:

> I agree that the numbers may be a little misleading, but merely meant to
> emphasize that although <= 16-bit processors may not be that glamorous, they
> are still represent the workhorses of the industry, and although may not be
> appropriate to host OS's such as Unix/Linux, are significant enough, and
> benefit from cross compiler support on such platforms that they should not
> be disregarded as being insignificant. (and somewhat paradoxically, may
> actually help GCC maintain it's target neutral architecture support, to the
> benefit of all).

But GCC fully supports most of these chips, and always has. I do not
understand what your point is here. All we noted was that you could not
*host* the gcc compiler on such chips, something which you agree is
not appropriate.