and
<http://www.suse.de/~gcctest/SPEC/CINT/sb-vangelis-head-64/recent.html>.
Daniel Berlin and Geert Bosch disagreed about how to interpret
these results; see <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2007-01/msg00034.html>.
Also, the benchmarks results use -O3 and so aren't directly
applicable
On 12/31/06, Bruce Korb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Daniel Berlin wrote:
>> Admittedly it's only two small tests, and it's with 4.1.1. But that's
>> two more tests than the -fwrapv naysayers have done, on
>> bread-and-butter applications like coreutils
On 12/31/06, Richard Guenther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 12/31/06, Daniel Berlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 12/31/06, Paul Eggert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > "Steven Bosscher" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > On 12/31/06
On 12/31/06, Paul Eggert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
"Steven Bosscher" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 12/31/06, Paul Eggert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Also, as I understand it this change shouldn't affect gcc's
>> SPEC benchmark scores, since they're typically done with -O3
>> or better.
>
>
Just to address the other compiler issue
No, they will work on other compilers, since 'configure'
won't use -O2 with those other compilers.
icc defaults to -O2 without any options, so unless you are passing
-O0, it will enable this.
Unless you know of some real-world C compiler that breaks
On 12/29/06, Daniel Berlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 12/29/06, Richard Kenner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I'm not sure what data you're asking for.
>
> Here's the data *I'd* like to see:
>
> (1) What is the maximum performance loss that
On 12/29/06, Richard Kenner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm not sure what data you're asking for.
Here's the data *I'd* like to see:
(1) What is the maximum performance loss that can be shown using a real
program (e.g,. one in SPEC) and some compiler (not necessarily GCC) when
one assumes wrap
On 29 Dec 2006 21:04:08 +0100, Gabriel Dos Reis
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
"Daniel Berlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
| Basically, your argument boils down to "all supporting data is wrong,
Really?
Or were you just
# You can have all the sarcasm you
On 29 Dec 2006 20:15:01 +0100, Gabriel Dos Reis
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
"Daniel Berlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On 29 Dec 2006 19:33:29 +0100, Gabriel Dos Reis
| <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| > "Daniel Berlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
On 29 Dec 2006 19:33:29 +0100, Gabriel Dos Reis
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
"Daniel Berlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
| In fact, what they told me was that since they made their change in
| 1991, they have had *1* person who reported a program that didn'
On 29 Dec 2006 07:55:59 -0800, Ian Lance Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
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 optimizati
11 matches
Mail list logo
