https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70731
--- Comment #2 from Josh Triplett <josh at joshtriplett dot org> --- (In reply to Marc Glisse from comment #1) > That... seems dangerous to me. With floats, unsafe operations tend to change > the low bits. With integers, an overflow gets the high bits wrong. If you > call test(INT_MAX,0,1,0) for instance, the result would be quite different > between the 2 functions... That's a fair point. Perhaps it should go into a separate optimization option, then, though it still seems in the spirit of -Ofast. (If overflow is a concern, the application would hopefully be checking for that separately; GCC also already has various optimizations that assume overflow cannot occur.)
