On Thursday 28 September 2006 16:17, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote about 'Optimizations (was Re: [gentoo-amd64] First Impressions)': > "Boyd Stephen Smith Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> skribis: > > Now, I have to problem with developers closing some bug opened by a > > ricer out there that's added -ffast-math to their CFLAGS as > > WONTFIX/INVALID since it's not really a problem. All the parts > > provided by Gentoo (ebuild, source, compiler, portage, etc.) all > > behaving properly. It's just that, just like the warning says, > > programs WILL break > > under -ffast-math. > > I have to disagree with this strongly, because -ffast-math means you > want code that violates the IEEE floating point standard.
Sorry, I mistyped "no" as "to" in the first sentence which completely changed my meaning. I agree that -ffast-math ricers could have their bugs closed with prejudice. -ffast-math is basically something that should only be allowed on a per-package basis, after consulting with upstream. > > > Indeed, there aren’t many fields of ‘production’ in which end users > > > ought to be encouraged to try things that expose flaws in design or > > > manufacture. > > I disagree. I want to know about those flaws, and I want the > > manufactures to fix them -- which is why I like Consumer Reports so > > much. :) > It’s one thing to read Consumer Reports and have it say your SUV rolls > over easily, and another to drive in a manner likely to roll your SUV > over. It’s even worse to sort of hold SUV drivers hostage by > encouraging them to roll over their SUVs unless and until the > manufacturer fixes the SUV. People should be encouraged to drive their > dangerous vehicles safely, and so should users be encouraged to set > their CFLAGS safely. I encourage users to try to roll their SUVs safely. :) If you are running a nuclear power plant off of Gentoo, then I hope you are going quite a bit further than just not using -O3. However, using -O3 is usually dangerous to only the user themselves (at most) so I see no problem encouraging it. That said, once somebody figures out (and publishes) that when you do X, Y, and Z to brand A SUV it rolls over. I'd discourage doing X, Y, and Z to brand A SUVs (it'll cost you an SUV and really doesn't provide much benefit). I'd encourage to X, Y, and Z to brand B, C, and D SUVs (*safely*) so that we can determine if the manufacturing flaw affects them as well. -- "If there's one thing we've established over the years, it's that the vast majority of our users don't have the slightest clue what's best for them in terms of package stability." -- Gentoo Developer Ciaran McCreesh
pgpnnUIHnLUWG.pgp
Description: PGP signature
