On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 1:53 PM, Joerg Sonnenberger <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 04:58:55PM -0700, Chandler Carruth wrote: > > Whether it is correct or not, people were not using > -minline-all-stringops > > to avoid calling out to libc for them, they were using it as equivalent > to > > -O9 or whatever. =/ By ignoring this flag we correctly compile a > nontrivial > > amount of code out there. > > My gut instinct tells me that it might be the path of least resistence > to silently accept -fexpensive-optimisations, but that it doesn't make > sense to give -minline-all-stringops the same threatment. I am going to > run some field study now to verify the intuition. I can already say that > there are a number of wtf moments ahead... For the record, we ran plenty of field experiments ourselves. We have had no problems with this. And in fact, I'm moderately confident we wont run into any *new* ones because as Nick pointed out ages ago in this thread, Clang used to ignore this flag, and every clang release has ignored this flag! We have never released a Clang compiler which rejected this flag.
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
