[Bug fortran/118955] Fortran uses vector math functions without -ffast-math

2025-02-20 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118955 --- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski --- But it is the later fpre-include. #define TARGET_F951_OPTIONS "%{!nostdinc:\ %:fortran-preinclude-file(-fpre-include= math-vector-fortran.h finclude%s/)}" I wonder if find_fortran_preinclude_file could

[Bug fortran/118955] Fortran uses vector math functions without -ffast-math

2025-02-20 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118955 --- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski --- I am trying to remember if math-vector-fortran.h is included via the preprocessor or include Fortran directive. If the former, then you could use preprocessor directives here.

[Bug fortran/118955] Fortran uses vector math functions without -ffast-math

2025-02-20 Thread wilco at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118955 --- Comment #2 from Wilco --- (In reply to Thomas Koenig from comment #1) > > Since vector > > functions can have much larger ULP errors, using them by default with -O2 > > seems excessive. > > "can have"? Is this indeed the case? I would consi

[Bug fortran/118955] Fortran uses vector math functions without -ffast-math

2025-02-20 Thread tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118955 --- Comment #1 from Thomas Koenig --- > Since vector > functions can have much larger ULP errors, using them by default with -O2 > seems excessive. "can have"? Is this indeed the case? I would consider this to be a bug in the implementation of

[Bug fortran/118955] Fortran uses vector math functions without -ffast-math

2025-02-20 Thread wilco at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118955 Wilco changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |16.0 Target|