[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <7171DDC6-A144-4DFD-96F1-B2DEEF09C5B0@adacore.com>
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2007 17:02:48 -0500
From: Geert Bosch <bosch@...core.com>
To: Segher Boessenkool <segher@...nel.crashing.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...l.org>, akpm@...l.org,
Albert Cahalan <acahalan@...il.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, s0348365@....ed.ac.uk,
bunk@...sta.de, mikpe@...uu.se
Subject: Re: kernel + gcc 4.1 = several problems
On Jan 4, 2007, at 13:34, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> The "signed wrap is undefined" thing doesn't fit in this category
> though:
>
> -- It is an important optimisation for loops with a signed
> induction variable;
It certainly isn't that important. Even SpecINT compiled with
-O3 and top-of-tree GCC *improves* 1% by adding -fwrapv.
If the compiler itself can rely on wrap-around semantics and
doesn't have to worry about introducing overflows between
optimization passes, it can reorder simple chains of additions.
This is more important for many real-world applications than
being able to perform some complex loop-interchange.
Compiler developers always make the mistake of overrating
their optimizations.
If GCC does really poorly on a few important loops that matter,
that issue is easily addressed. If GCC generates unreliable
code for millions of boring lines of important real-world C,
the compiler is worthless.
-Geert
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists