On 5/6/10 10:24 , Richard Guenther wrote:
> Any comments or objections?
I agree. It sounds useful. It's a bit confusing in that I don't know
whether it means 'compile very fast' or 'make my code run very fast'.
I've seen it mean the latter in most places, so I guess that's fine.
Allowing backe
Richard Guenther wrote:
> This is a proposal to introduce an optimization level -Ofast
> that can collect (target specific) optimization flags that
> can affect runtime behavior such as -funsafe-math-optimizations
> or -mrecip.
I think that makes sense. Defining what's allowed in these cases is
On 06/05/2010 21:25, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> Richard Guenther writes:
>
>> This is a proposal to introduce an optimization level -Ofast
>> that can collect (target specific) optimization flags that
>> can affect runtime behavior such as -funsafe-math-optimizations
>> or -mrecip.
>
> Sounds lik
Richard Guenther writes:
> This is a proposal to introduce an optimization level -Ofast
> that can collect (target specific) optimization flags that
> can affect runtime behavior such as -funsafe-math-optimizations
> or -mrecip.
Sounds like a good idea to me. I don't like the name -Ofast, which
On 05/06/2010 04:24 PM, Richard Guenther wrote:
> I would initially propose to make -Ofast be -O3 -ffast-math
> and would strongly encourage target maintainers that consider
> adding to -Ofast make sure that popular benchmarks for
> their target still behave correctly when using -Ofast.
I am in fa
This is a proposal to introduce an optimization level -Ofast
that can collect (target specific) optimization flags that
can affect runtime behavior such as -funsafe-math-optimizations
or -mrecip.
Currently none of the standard optimization levels have this
kind of affect and we should not change
