Robert Dewar writes: > Brooks Moses wrote: > > > Now, if your argument is that following the LIA-1 standard will > > prevent optimizations that could otherwise be made if one > > followed only the C standard, that's a reasonable argument, but > > it should not be couched as if it implies that preventing the > > optimizations would not be following the C standard. > > I continue to suspect that the gains from this optimization are minimal > to non-existent in practice. Given the requirements in LIA-1, I would > think that taking advantage of overflow being undefined is only > acceptable
That's an interesting use of the passive voice. Acceptable to whom? > if there is very clear quantitative data showing that this indeed > is a significant optimization. We've already defined `-fwrapv' for people who need nonstandard arithmetic. I don't see that this is any different from the interminable strict-aliasing discussion. Andrew.
