Paul de Vrieze posted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, excerpted below, on Wed, 13 Apr 2005 11:39:54 +0200:
> You are a bit wrong here. The -Ox options do not enable features that > should be expected to be dangerous. It does however enable features that > are in some gcc versions buggy. [] In general there are many different > combinations possible for gcc options and some of them only create bugs > in interaction with eachother. This leads to the fact that gcc tends to > be buggy with the lesser used (or newer) features. That I can agree with. I was just going to reply to FlameEyes that if indeed any -Ox feature /was/ dangerous on any particular arch, I'd call that a gcc bug, which fits in here very nicely. I wonder about your example, however. Was sse math enabled (even for the P4) with any -Ox option in GCC 3.2.x? If it was, I'd call that a poor decision, because it was too early for that to be used in the general -Ox flags. OTOH, -funit-at-a-time makes a very good example, because it IS enabled by a -Ox option, -Os, as it happens, which is the one under discussion... As I mentioned, this one did have some issues originally, but AFAIK, they were more one of bugs in the programs being compiled that were never previously caught due to smaller scope, than they were GCCs bugs. (I'm not a GCC dev, so I could be all wet with this, but that's how I took what I've read on the subject.) -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman in http://www.linuxdevcenter.com/pub/a/linux/2004/12/22/rms_interview.html -- [email protected] mailing list
