Richard Guenther wrote:
>> Perhaps Richard G. would be so kind as to turn this off in VRP, and
>> rerun SPEC with that change?
>
> I can do this.
Thank you very much!
--
Mark Mitchell
CodeSourcery
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(650) 331-3385 x713
Ian, and I are all agreed on that point,
and, I think, that disabling the assumption about signed overflow not
occurring during VRP (perhaps leaving that available under control of a
command-line option, for those users who think it will help their code),
is the right thing to try.
--
Mark Mitchell
CodeSourcery
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(650) 331-3385 x713
ctice, we probably won't "miscompile" many
non-conforming programs, and we probably won't miss two many useful
optimization opportunities.
Perhaps Richard G. would be so kind as to turn this off in VRP, and
rerun SPEC with that change?
--
Mark Mitchell
CodeSourcery
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(650) 331-3385 x713
hat's assuming signed overflow wraps, can we
qualify how/where it's doing that? Is it in explicit overflow tests?
In loop bounds?
Great performance is important; so is compiling dusty-deck code.
Striking a balance is hard. We can't make this decision reasoning from
first principles.
--
Mark Mitchell
CodeSourcery
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(650) 331-3385 x713
