> On Mar 24, 2023, at 3:42 PM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
>
> On Fri, Mar 24, 2023 at 1:14 AM Fangrui Song via Gcc-patches
> wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 22, 2023 at 8:52 AM Qing Zhao via Gcc-patches
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
On Mar 22, 2023, at 9:57 AM, Richard Biener via Gcc-patches
Any update on this thread discussion? And the thread was straying to the
document of option and user-friendly stuff.
So does the default value of -ffp-contract=fast obey the C/C++ language
standard? But why does clang not obey? Or is it just compiler
implement-dependent which is not specified
On Fri, Mar 24, 2023 at 1:14 AM Fangrui Song via Gcc-patches
wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 22, 2023 at 8:52 AM Qing Zhao via Gcc-patches
> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Mar 22, 2023, at 9:57 AM, Richard Biener via Gcc-patches
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, Mar 22, 2023 at 1:26 PM Alexander Monakov
On Wed, Mar 22, 2023 at 8:52 AM Qing Zhao via Gcc-patches
wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 22, 2023, at 9:57 AM, Richard Biener via Gcc-patches
> > wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 22, 2023 at 1:26 PM Alexander Monakov
> > wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> On Wed, 22 Mar 2023, Richard Biener wrote:
> >>
> >>> I think
> On Mar 22, 2023, at 9:57 AM, Richard Biener via Gcc-patches
> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 22, 2023 at 1:26 PM Alexander Monakov wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Wed, 22 Mar 2023, Richard Biener wrote:
>>
>>> I think it's even less realistic to expect users to know the details of
>>> floating-point math.
> On Mar 22, 2023, at 8:33 AM, Alexander Monakov wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, 20 Mar 2023, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Mar 20, 2023 at 10:05:57PM +, Qing Zhao via Gcc-patches wrote:
>>> My question: is the above section the place in C standard “explicitly
>>> allows
On Wed, Mar 22, 2023 at 1:26 PM Alexander Monakov wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, 22 Mar 2023, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> > I think it's even less realistic to expect users to know the details of
> > floating-point math. So I doubt any such sentence will be helpful
> > besides spreading some FUD?
>
> I
On Mon, 20 Mar 2023, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 20, 2023 at 10:05:57PM +, Qing Zhao via Gcc-patches wrote:
> > My question: is the above section the place in C standard “explicitly
> > allows contractions”? If not, where it is in C standard?
>
>
On Wed, 22 Mar 2023, Richard Biener wrote:
> I think it's even less realistic to expect users to know the details of
> floating-point math. So I doubt any such sentence will be helpful
> besides spreading some FUD?
I think it's closer to "fundamental notions" rather than "details". For
users
On Tue, Mar 21, 2023 at 7:18 PM Jeff Law via Gcc-patches
wrote:
>
>
>
> On 3/21/23 12:12, Alexander Monakov wrote:
> >>> Yes, it’s better to know the details of languages standard. -:)
> >>> However, I don’t think that this is a realistic expectation to the
> >>> compiler
> >>> users: to know
On Tue, Mar 21, 2023 at 05:28:52PM -0600, Jeff Law via Gcc-patches wrote:
> On 3/21/23 13:12, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 21, 2023 at 07:01:36PM +, Qing Zhao via Gcc-patches wrote:
> > > In addition to this, Standards have been changed from time to time.
> >
> > So, the user needs to
On 3/21/23 13:12, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Tue, Mar 21, 2023 at 07:01:36PM +, Qing Zhao via Gcc-patches wrote:
In addition to this, Standards have been changed from time to time.
So, the user needs to know the standard they are compiling for.
Anyway, talking again about contractions,
On Tue, Mar 21, 2023 at 07:01:36PM +, Qing Zhao via Gcc-patches wrote:
> In addition to this, Standards have been changed from time to time.
So, the user needs to know the standard they are compiling for.
Anyway, talking again about contractions, it isn't anything new in the
standard, C99
> On Mar 21, 2023, at 3:51 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
>
>
>
> On 3/21/23 13:01, Qing Zhao wrote:
>
>> The code previously worked now has some issue since we added some new stuff
>> into standard, and the compiler added some new transformation based on this
>> new stuff. Should the compiler issue
On 3/21/23 13:01, Qing Zhao wrote:
The code previously worked now has some issue since we added some new stuff
into standard, and the compiler added some new transformation based on this new
stuff. Should the compiler issue some warnings to warn the users about such
change? Then the user
> On Mar 21, 2023, at 1:59 PM, Jeff Law via Gcc-patches
> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 3/21/23 11:00, Qing Zhao via Gcc-patches wrote:
>>> On Mar 21, 2023, at 12:56 PM, Paul Koning wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
On Mar 21, 2023, at 11:01 AM, Qing Zhao via Gcc-patches
wrote:
...
On 3/21/23 19:03, Paul Koning via Gcc-patches wrote:
Failure to understand the language is a common problem and we do try to emit
various diagnostics to help developers avoid writing non-conformant code. But
ultimately if a developer fails to understand the language standard, then
they're
On 3/21/23 12:12, Alexander Monakov wrote:
Yes, it’s better to know the details of languages standard. -:)
However, I don’t think that this is a realistic expectation to the compiler
users: to know all the details of a language standard.
Umm, they really do need to know that stuff.
If the
On Tue, 21 Mar 2023, Jeff Law via Gcc-patches wrote:
> On 3/21/23 11:00, Qing Zhao via Gcc-patches wrote:
> >
> >> On Mar 21, 2023, at 12:56 PM, Paul Koning wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Mar 21, 2023, at 11:01 AM, Qing Zhao via Gcc-patches
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> ...
> >>> Most of the compiler users
> On Mar 21, 2023, at 1:59 PM, Jeff Law via Gcc-patches
> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 3/21/23 11:00, Qing Zhao via Gcc-patches wrote:
>>> On Mar 21, 2023, at 12:56 PM, Paul Koning wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
On Mar 21, 2023, at 11:01 AM, Qing Zhao via Gcc-patches
wrote:
...
On 3/21/23 11:00, Qing Zhao via Gcc-patches wrote:
On Mar 21, 2023, at 12:56 PM, Paul Koning wrote:
On Mar 21, 2023, at 11:01 AM, Qing Zhao via Gcc-patches
wrote:
...
Most of the compiler users are not familiar with language standards, or no
access to language standards. Without
> On Mar 21, 2023, at 12:56 PM, Paul Koning wrote:
>
>
>
>> On Mar 21, 2023, at 11:01 AM, Qing Zhao via Gcc-patches
>> wrote:
>>
>> ...
>> Most of the compiler users are not familiar with language standards, or no
>> access to language standards. Without clearly documenting such warnings
> On Mar 21, 2023, at 11:01 AM, Qing Zhao via Gcc-patches
> wrote:
>
> ...
> Most of the compiler users are not familiar with language standards, or no
> access to language standards. Without clearly documenting such warnings along
> with the option explicitly, the users have not way to
> On Mar 20, 2023, at 6:25 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> On Mon, Mar 20, 2023 at 10:05:57PM +, Qing Zhao via Gcc-patches wrote:
>> My question: is the above section the place in C standard “explicitly allows
>> contractions”? If not, where it is in C standard?
>
>
Thanks a lot for the info.
Qing
> On Mar 20, 2023, at 6:25 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> On Mon, Mar 20, 2023 at 10:05:57PM +, Qing Zhao via Gcc-patches wrote:
>> My question: is the above section the place in C standard “explicitly allows
>> contractions”? If not, where it is in C
On Mon, Mar 20, 2023 at 10:05:57PM +, Qing Zhao via Gcc-patches wrote:
> My question: is the above section the place in C standard “explicitly allows
> contractions”? If not, where it is in C standard?
http://port70.net/%7Ensz/c/c99/n1256.html#6.5p8
Hi,
> On Mar 16, 2023, at 12:53 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> On Thu, Mar 16, 2023 at 04:38:41PM +, Qing Zhao via Gcc-patches wrote:
>>> NO. We have this debate every few years and such.
>>
>> So, what’s the major reason we keep the default that is not IEEE754
>> compliant from the
> On Mar 16, 2023, at 12:53 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> On Thu, Mar 16, 2023 at 04:38:41PM +, Qing Zhao via Gcc-patches wrote:
>>> NO. We have this debate every few years and such.
>>
>> So, what’s the major reason we keep the default that is not IEEE754
>> compliant from the
On Thu, Mar 16, 2023 at 04:38:41PM +, Qing Zhao via Gcc-patches wrote:
> > NO. We have this debate every few years and such.
>
> So, what’s the major reason we keep the default that is not IEEE754
> compliant from the beginning?
It is compliant. fusedMultiplyAdd is a standard IEEE 754
> On Mar 16, 2023, at 12:31 PM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
>
> On Thu, Mar 16, 2023 at 9:25 AM Qing Zhao via Gcc-patches
> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Recently, we discovered some floating point precision diffs when using GCC8
>> to build our
>> application on arm64: After some investigation, it
On Thu, Mar 16, 2023 at 9:25 AM Qing Zhao via Gcc-patches
wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Recently, we discovered some floating point precision diffs when using GCC8
> to build our
> application on arm64: After some investigation, it turns out that this is due
> to the
> -ffp-contract=fast option that is on
Hi,
Recently, we discovered some floating point precision diffs when using GCC8 to
build our
application on arm64: After some investigation, it turns out that this is due
to the
-ffp-contract=fast option that is on by default. Therefore, we have to
explicitly add
-ffp-contract=off and do a
32 matches
Mail list logo
