Richard Guenther wrote:
Excellent. Let's see if we can have some performance numbers (from Richard ;)
Uh, I know of no thing that uses complex numbers and does not manually
implement them.
Crazy. I understand both in C and in C++, right?
Therefore, we should consider your observation
On Thu, 5 Jul 2007, Paolo Carlini wrote:
> Mark Mitchell wrote:
>
> >To be clear, my preferences, from most preferable to least are:
> >
> >* Method 2 is the default for all C variants, but can be overridden by
> >-ffast-math, or -fcomplex-method.
> >
> >* Method 2 is the default for C99 and C++0
Mark Mitchell wrote:
To be clear, my preferences, from most preferable to least are:
* Method 2 is the default for all C variants, but can be overridden by
-ffast-math, or -fcomplex-method.
* Method 2 is the default for C99 and C++0x, but not for C89 or C++, but
can be overridden by -ffast-mat
Paolo Carlini wrote:
> Ah, one final remark wrt C++0x: note that currently, irrespective of the
> switches, there is *no way* for the user to choose method 2 in C++. I
> think this is very bad in C++0x mode: essentially, as regards this
> feature, it cannot track C99 as it *must*. I really hope we
Hi Mark,
Paolo Carlini wrote:
Therefore, I'm not sure... I would certainly like to see method 2
becoming the default everywhere, on the other hand, I'm not sure if
method 2 isn't too slow as default for C89 (outside fast-math, I
repeat). Shall we carry out performance tests perhaps, or peak
pe
Paolo Carlini wrote:
> Therefore, I'm not sure... I would certainly like to see method 2
> becoming the default everywhere, on the other hand, I'm not sure if
> method 2 isn't too slow as default for C89 (outside fast-math, I
> repeat). Shall we carry out performance tests perhaps, or peak
> perfo
Hi Mark,
I'd prefer not to introduce a situation in which compiling the same code
with "gcc" and with "g++" behaves differently and which performs worse
in one case than the other. Users expect the C subset of C++ to perform
like C.
If we want the C99 rules, let's just turn them on everywhere,
Richard Guenther wrote:
>> I'm having a look to libstdc++/30482, which basically is C++ issue: Jakub
>> basically raises the issue of whether we want to use by default the
>> C99-conforming division in C++ too. Personally, I would be in favor of
>> enabling it unconditionally, modulo maybe a perfo
On Thu, 5 Jul 2007, Paolo Carlini wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm having a look to libstdc++/30482, which basically is C++ issue: Jakub
> basically raises the issue of whether we want to use by default the
> C99-conforming division in C++ too. Personally, I would be in favor of
> enabling it unconditionally
Hi,
I'm having a look to libstdc++/30482, which basically is C++ issue:
Jakub basically raises the issue of whether we want to use by default
the C99-conforming division in C++ too. Personally, I would be in favor
of enabling it unconditionally, modulo maybe a performance check
(Richard...).
10 matches
Mail list logo
