On Mon, Mar 19, 2007 at 09:26:56AM -0400, Nick ! wrote: > On 3/19/07, Karel Kulhavy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >On Sat, Feb 17, 2007 at 10:06:43PM +0100, Joachim Schipper wrote: > >> > >> Aggressive compiler optimizations are not generally a good idea. The > >> developers believe they are an unnecessary source of bugs, and since > > > >I would like to point out here that the idea of optimization is that an > >equivalent code that executes faster is produced. Optimizations don't > >permit generating code that is not equivalent, unless specifically stated > >in the flag description (-ffast-math). > > > >It's therefore not the responsibility of the programmer to check whether > >the > >result of optimization is correct. Therefore it's not the optimizations > >that > >are source of bugs, but bugs in GCC. > > But the practical fact is that GCC has these bugs and so optimizations > are an unnecessary source of bugs.
But the proper way to handle these bugs is not work around them, but report them to the GCC developer so they can fix it. Otherwise we'll never get rid of them. CL< > > -Nick
