On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 02:07:06PM -0700, Chandler Carruth wrote: > 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.
I am well aware of what clang is doing and was doing. I know also quite well how much fun it is to hunt down regressions both to silently ignored options and new failures due to unknown ones. What I am testing right now is whether the "nontrivial amount of code" exists or not. Joerg _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
