On 05 Mar 2007 12:24:18 -0800, Ian Lance Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
"Andrew Pinski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
If Mark agrees with you, then I'm unfortunately going to have to lobby
to disable VRP by default in 4.2.
Then it should also be disabled by default also in 4.1.3 and should
have been disabled in 4.1.2 which was only released last month so
there is no reason why it has to be disabled in 4.2.0 if everyone is
using 4.1 anyways.
As you know, Paul Eggert has proposed having autoconf
automatically pass -fwrapv when compiling with gcc. I think that
would be extremely unfortunate. Disabling VRP by default will be the
lesser of two evils.
but again 4.1.x still has VRP enabled so did you not agree for 4.1.2
to have VRP disabled at the begining of the year after you found out
about what Paul was going to do with autoconf? I still don't see why
4.2.0 has to be different from 4.1.x in this respect.
> Also isn't there still some regressions associated still with this change?
> <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2007-03/msg00120.html> for the reference of
> the regressions.
That one is already fixed, I believe.
They were referencing wrong code generation and the patch I thought
you did was only to fix the internal error.
Also I still say this changing of VRP and fold is too destructive to
put it on a release branch just after two days, I would wait at least
a month for these kind of patches really.
-- Pinski
