[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: Richard Kenner
Subject: Re: changing "configure" to default to "gcc -g -O2 -fwrapv ..."
Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2006 21:02:30 EST

> > > Note that -fwrapv also _enables_ some transformations on signed
> > > integers that are disabled otherwise.  We for example constant fold
> > > -CST for -fwrapv while we do not if signed overflow is undefined.
> > > Would you change those?
> > 
> > I don't understand the rationale for not wrapping constant folding when
> > signed overflow is undefined: what's the harm in "defining" it as wrapping
> > for that purpose?  If it's undefined, then why does it matter what we
> > fold it to?  So we might as well fold it to what traditional code expects.
> If flag_wrapv is false, we can't do any optimization which may
> introduce signed overflow when it did not already exist.  

But how would that happen here?  If we constant-fold something that would
have overflowed by wrapping, we are ELIMINATING a signed overflow, not
INTRODUCING one.  Or do I misunderstand what folding we're talking about here?

reply via email to

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