Andrew Pinski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | > | > Paul Eggert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | > | > > * NEWS: AC_PROG_CC, AC_PROG_CXX, and AC_PROG_OBJC now take an | > > optional second argument specifying the default optimization | > > options for GCC. These optimizations now default to "-O2 -fwrapv" | > > instead of to "-O2". This partly attacks the problem reported by | > > Ralf Wildenhues in | > > <http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-gnulib/2006-12/msg00084.html> | > > and in <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2006-12/msg00459.html>. | > | > Does anybody think that Paul's proposed patch to autoconf would be | > better than changing VRP? | | I think both ways are incorrect way forward. | What about coding the loops like: | | if (sizeof(time_t) == sizeof(unsigned int)) | { | // do loop using unsigned int | // convert to time_t and then see if an overflow happened | } | //etc. for the other type
Yuck. If the above is the only without Autoconf change, I would highly recommend Autoconf change if GCC optimizers highly value benchmarks over running real world code. -- Gaby
