In epistula a Karel Kulhavy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> die horaque Mon, 19
Mar 2007 16:00:49 +0100:

> On Mon, Mar 19, 2007 at 09:26:56AM -0400, Nick ! wrote:
> > On 3/19/07, Karel Kulhavy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >On Sat, Feb 17, 2007 at 10:06:43PM +0100, Joachim Schipper wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Aggressive compiler optimizations are not generally a good idea.
> > >> The developers believe they are an unnecessary source of bugs,
> > >> and since
> > >
> > >I would like to point out here that the idea of optimization is
> > >that an equivalent code that executes faster is produced.
> > >Optimizations don't permit generating code that is not equivalent,
> > >unless specifically stated in the flag description (-ffast-math).
> > >
> > >It's therefore not the responsibility of the programmer to check
> > >whether the
> > >result of optimization is correct. Therefore it's not the
> > >optimizations that
> > >are source of bugs, but bugs in GCC.
> > 
> > But the practical fact is that GCC has these bugs and so
> > optimizations are an unnecessary source of bugs.
> 
> But the proper way to handle these bugs is not work around them, but
> report them to the GCC developer so they can fix it. Otherwise we'll
> never get rid of them.
> 
> CL<

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30785

no comment required, as 'it rains outside -- you get wet'. ;D

Reply via email to