Lang, et al., Do you (or anyone else) have an opinion on this? Do we want to introduce vendor-specific defaults for this? Should we wait until contraction is fully implemented in clang and let them test the differential performance (and what's the status on that)?
Thanks again, Hal On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 15:34:26 +0200 Tobias von Koch <[email protected]> wrote: > New patch with test case attached. > > Thanks again, > Tobias > > On 28/08/2012 20:00, Hal Finkel wrote: > > Tobias, > > > > This also requires a test case. > > > > -Hal > > > > On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 18:54:18 +0200 > > Tobias von Koch <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> Dear all, > >> > >> This is part of a sequence of three (trivial) patches to allow > >> Clang to be used as a drop-in replacement for GCC with the > >> Freescale SDK. Support for Freescale processors has just been > >> added to the PowerPC backend. > >> > >> Please review and commit if this is OK - I don't have commit > >> access. > >> > >> Thanks! > >> Tobias > >> > >> Description of patch: > >> > >> If vendor==Freescale, set fp-contract=fast unless specified > >> otherwise. This is the default in GCC on Freescale targets. > >> > > > > > > > -- Hal Finkel Postdoctoral Appointee Leadership Computing Facility Argonne National Laboratory _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
