On Mon, 9 Mar 2009, Sylvain Pion wrote: > - C++ does not have it, so what's the plan for C++ ?
That's for C++ maintainers, possibly guided by anything that goes in the C++ standard. The pragma syntax is a fairly small part of the work, as would be control of the options at a per-function level. The large parts would be: * Disabling all problematic optimizations when the relevant options are set. * Control on a per-operation level, so block-level pragmas don't act like function-level ones and you can inline functions with different settings without making the most conservative settings apply to the merged function. Note that these large parts are language-independent. > > GCC maintainers must also bear in mind the bulk of users for whom the > > default options, complete with other issues such as x87 excess precision, > > are just fine, and the value of good benchmark scores in marketing GCC. > > (You will of course nevertheless note that I have fixed PR 323 for C for > > 4.5.) > > Yep, I did note, and this is impressive work. > Though, as a C++ user, I won't see the benefit of it for now unfortunately :( The C++ maintainers (or others) are of course free to implement appropriate semantics for C++. (I don't think C++0x has followed C99 in providing any standard way to handle excess precision, but I imagine something reasonable and GCC-specific could be defined, just as I made GCC-specific interpretations of areas in which C99 was silent. There has certainly been some suggestion that Fortran might wish to implement something <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2009-01/msg00332.html>. -- Joseph S. Myers jos...@codesourcery.com
