On 5/27/05, Scott Robert Ladd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Paul Koning wrote: > > Allan> Maybe the real goal like other have mentioned should be to > > Allan> divide the -ffast-math into multiple switches. > > > > Yes, and document them so both users and implementers can tell what > > they mean, which is not currently the case. > > I'm more than willing to do this, and relatively quickly, but as I said > in a prior message, I need some sort of assurance that I wouldn't be > wasting my time. > > I can post a suggested set of switches and their meanings? We could > actually document what the switches do *before* implementing them.
Well, as I said before, actually enumerating the transformations we currently do would be a start. And it would aid at finding useful subclasses of transformations. As well as then having documentation by enumerating of (current) transformations together with the switches that affect them. Richard.
