On 25/02/13 22:32, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 4:18 PM, Tom Wijsman <tom...@gentoo.org> wrote: >> Though people that use -ffast-math / -fLTO / -fuse-linker-plugin should >> be on their own, thus I drop -ffast-math because it breaks my browser; >> but that doesn't mean that those ricer flags should stop stabilization. > > If we're talking about for general use in CFLAGs clearly -ffast-math > isn't something that even could be supported if we wanted to. The > flag is just not intended for general use.
And if you stop here everything would be agreeable. > That isn't the same as saying that we can just break it in cases where > it actually is appropriate. Calculating scroll bar movement is > exactly the sort of thing that this flag was actually designed for - > you don't care if it is off by 1/100th of a pixel. Please check your facts. using -ffast-math could do anything from nothing to cause severe security issues. > But, the way to track that sort of a thing is to log those as bugs > against appropriate use within individual apps and make them blockers. No. > I'd consider things like this valid bugs - but whether they hold > things up should depend on real-world impact. I'm not sure how bad > the impact on chromium actually is. Absolutely not. Some code is _designed_ to work w/out caring about ieee corner cases and some is _designed_ to work leveraging them. NOT bug. To reinstate: if you use -ffast-math or other known-to-alter-the-standard-behaviour or, even worst, experimental flags you are on your own. lu
