Robert Dewar wrote: >> So basically you're saying gcc developers should compensate for other >> people's sloppy engineering? ;-) > > Yes I would say! where possible this seems an excellent goal.
I agree: when it's possible to support non-standard legacy semantics that do not conflict with the standard, without substantial negative impact, then that's a good thing to do. In this specific case, we know there is a significant performance impact, and we know that performance is very important to both the existing and potential GCC user base, so I think that making the compiler more aggressive at -O2 is sensible. And, Ian is working on -fno-strict-overflow, so that users have a choice, which is also very sensible. Perhaps the distribution vendors will then add value by selectively compiling packages that need it with -fno-strict-overflow so that security-critical packages are that much less likely to do bad things, while making the rest of the system go faster by not using the option. I think we've selected a very reasonable path here. -- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery [EMAIL PROTECTED] (650) 331-3385 x713
