https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71885
--- Comment #25 from Manuel López-Ibáñez <manu at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Kern Sibbald from comment #23)
> That said, I still think the project made a bad decision on this one, and
The "project" doesn't make decisions. Individuals submit patches and other
individuals (or the same one) who have a long history of useful contributions
approve them if nobody speaks out.
Markus, you and I (and perhaps others) may agree that the potential gains in
optimization do not seem to justify the grief caused, but we (including you)
are not bothered enough to do the work required to change the status-quo (for
example, adding a warning to detect this case and only enabling this
optimization for -Ofast would be a good way to convince maintainers to change
the default).
Arguing from an assumption of bad faith ("g++'s tinkering with valid user's
programs should stop", "g++ generated bug") is not going to convince anyone to
do the work that you want to see done for you for free, only entrench them in
their own opinion and stop listening to you.
