On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 2:35 PM, Stephen Canon <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Jun 5, 2012, at 2:31 PM, Chandler Carruth <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 2:15 PM, Stephen Canon <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > The trouble I see with this is that you're going to end up generating an >> enormous number of start/stop intrinsics for some code (one pair for every >> source expression containing FP, effectively). I'm not sure how much of a >> concern that really is, but it feels inelegant to me. >> > > My idea was essentially that you would only do this where contraction was > precluded, which you indicated should be rare (1%). That should restrict > the amount of start/stop churn? > > Are you imagining something completely different? > > > Contraction is precluded across expression boundaries in the standard C > numerics model. Assuming we want to support standard C numerics, you would > need to insert start/stop for every expression containing FP. > AH! So when you indicated only 1% would need to turn the pragma to off, it was because the 99% case rely entirely on the source expression restriction.
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
