[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: changing "configure" to default to "gcc -g -O2 -fwrapv ..."

From: Bernd Schmidt
Subject: Re: changing "configure" to default to "gcc -g -O2 -fwrapv ..."
Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2006 11:39:40 +0100
User-agent: Thunderbird (X11/20061229)

Paul Eggert wrote:
(2) In the current SPEC, how many programs benefit from undefined overflow
semantics and how much does each benefit?

Those questions are more for the opponents of -fwrapv, so
I'll let them answer them.  But why are they relevant?

It's relevant in a "did my system just become 50% slower because of a change in autoconf defaults" sort of way.

(3) How many programs are known to rely on wrap semantics?  For each:
  (a) How hard was it to determine there was a problem with that assumption?

I'm not sure what you're asking for here.

Actual data, rather than handwaving. Which programs are affected? Show us all the broken code that you are actually aware of. You are making this out to be a huge problem, so let's see why.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]