On 1/4/07, Richard Sandiford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
"Richard Guenther" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 1/4/07, Richard Sandiford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Paul Eggert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > Mark Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTEC
On 1/4/07, Richard Sandiford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Paul Eggert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Mark Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> it sounds like that would eliminate most of the problem. Certainly,
>> making -INT_MIN evaluate to INT_MIN, when expressed like that, is an
>> easy thing
On 1/2/07, Richard Kenner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We do that with -fstrict-aliasing, which also changes language semantics.
Well, yes, but not quite in the same way. Indeed it's rather hard to
describe in what way it changes the language semantics but easier to
describe the effect it has o
On 1/2/07, Robert Dewar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Richard Guenther wrote:
> On 1/1/07, Geert Bosch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
specfp.
>
> I would support the proposal to enable -fwrapv for -O[01], but
> not for -O2 as that is supposed to be "optimize for speed&quo
On 1/2/07, Mark Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Daniel Berlin wrote:
>> Richard Guenther added -fwrapv to the December 30 run of SPEC at
>> <http://www.suse.de/~gcctest/SPEC/CFP/sb-vangelis-head-64/recent.html>
>> and
>> <http://www.suse.de/~gcctest/SP
On 1/1/07, Geert Bosch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Dec 31, 2006, at 19:13, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> Note the distinct drop in performance across almost all the benchmarks
> on Dec 30, including popular programs like bzip2 and gzip.
Not so.
To my eyes, the specint 2000 mean went UP by about 1% f
On 1/1/07, Richard Kenner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> the seemingly prevalent attitude "but it is undefined; but it is not
> C" is the opinion of the majority of middle-end maintainers.
Does anybody DISAGREE with that "attitude"? It isn't valid C to assume that
signed overflow wraps. I've hea
On 12/31/06, Richard Kenner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Are you volunteering to audit the present cases and argue whether they
> fall in the "traditional" cases?
I'm certainly willing to *help*, but I'm sure there will be some cases
that will require discussion to get a consensus.
> Note that
On 12/31/06, Richard Kenner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think this is a fragile and not very practical approach. How do
> you define these "traditional" cases?
You don't need to define the "cases" in advance. Rather, you look at
each place where you'd be making an optimization based on the
On 12/31/06, Robert Dewar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Paul Eggert wrote:
> The question is not whether GCC should support wrapv
> semantics; it already does, if you specify -fwrapv.
> The question is merely whether wrapv should be the default
> with optimization levels -O0 through -O2.
That over
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, Paul Eggert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Also, as I understand it this change shouldn't affect gcc's
> >> SPEC benchmark
On 12/31/06, Duncan Sands <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > for this specific function (vrp_int_const_binop), I'm issuing a
> > warning inside the else-if branch that tests for the overflowed
> > result. I'm unclear why that is a false positive since the result is
> > known to overflow. Could you
On 31 Dec 2006 00:40:39 +0100, Gabriel Dos Reis
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
"Richard Guenther" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On 31 Dec 2006 00:10:23 +0100, Gabriel Dos Reis
| <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| > "Richard Guenther" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On 31 Dec 2006 12:42:57 +0100, Gabriel Dos Reis
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
"Richard Guenther" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On 12/31/06, Richard Kenner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| > > What would you suggest this function to do, based on your comments?
| >
On 12/31/06, Richard Kenner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What would you suggest this function to do, based on your comments?
I'm not familiar enough with VRP to answer at that level, but at a higher
level, what I'd advocate is that the *generator* of information would track
things both ways, ass
On 31 Dec 2006 00:10:23 +0100, Gabriel Dos Reis
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
"Richard Guenther" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On 30 Dec 2006 23:55:46 +0100, Gabriel Dos Reis
| <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| >/* Wrapper around int_const_binop. If the operation ove
On 30 Dec 2006 23:55:46 +0100, Gabriel Dos Reis
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Kenner) writes:
| > Here's an example from the intprops module of gnulib.
|
| These are interesting case.
|
| Note that all the computations are constant-folded.
|
| And I think this points the
On 12/30/06, Paul Eggert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
For example, GCC itself assumes wrapv semantics internally,
but according to the -fwrapv opponents GCC is obviously "at
fault" here and should be fixed, so that shouldn't count,
right? (If that's the way the data will be collected, I
think I k
On 12/29/06, Daniel Jacobowitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Fri, Dec 29, 2006 at 10:44:02PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> (BTW, I would be somewhat disappointed if this had to be pampered over
> on the autoconf side. If the GNU project needs -fwrapv for its own
> software by default, this shou
On 12/29/06, Paul Eggert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Ian Lance Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Does anybody think that Paul's proposed patch to autoconf would be
> better than changing VRP?
I don't.
I haven't noticed anyone else addressing this question,
which I think is a good one.
I don
On 12/29/06, Robert Dewar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Daniel Berlin wrote:
> I'm sure no matter what argument i come up with, you'll just explain it away.
> The reality is the majority of our users seem to care more about
> whether they have to write "typename" in front of certain declarations
>
21 matches
Mail list logo
