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
