http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56589
Manuel López-Ibáñez <manu at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |manu at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3 from Manuel López-Ibáñez <manu at gcc dot gnu.org> 2013-03-11
09:22:07 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> From the changes page:
> GCC now uses a more aggressive analysis to derive an upper bound for the
> number
> of iterations of loops using constraints imposed by language standards. This
> may cause non-conforming programs to no longer work as expected, such as SPEC
> CPU 2006 464.h264ref and 416.gamess. A new option,
> -fno-aggressive-loop-optimizations, was added to disable this aggressive
> analysis.
> ------- CUT ----------
Maybe the default should be -fno-aggressive-loop-optimizations, and only enable
it for -Ofast (or not even yet until there is a more or less reliable warning
in place). Does the benefit of such a potential optimization of real code
outweighs the frustration and breakage that will certainly ensue?
