From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 18097 invoked by alias); 21 Jan 2007 13:53:47 -0000 Received: (qmail 17650 invoked by uid 48); 21 Jan 2007 13:53:36 -0000 Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2007 13:53:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20070121135336.17649.qmail@sourceware.org> X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC References: Subject: [Bug c/30475] assert(int+100 > int) optimized away In-Reply-To: Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org From: "felix-gcc at fefe dot de" Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2007-01/txt/msg01652.txt.bz2 ------- Comment #33 from felix-gcc at fefe dot de 2007-01-21 13:53 ------- so now you give us... a straw man? The range analysis has nothing to do with just assuming integers can't wrap. But more to the point: the Intel compiler does not assume signed integers can't wrap, and IT STILL PRODUCES MUCH FASTER CODE THAN GCC. So all your hand waiving about how this optimization is good for performance is utterly destroyed by the Intel compiler. And please let me express my shock how you tell me to my face that the only example where this optimization has measurable impact (I didn't actually try it, but I will) is when it optimizes away range checks in C++ vectors. Which, you know, exist solely because THERE ARE NO RANGE CHECKS IN C ARRAYS and, uh, C++ is much better and people are told to use C++ vectors instead BECAUSE THEY HAVE RANGE CHECKS and now you tell me that your optimization removes those. Whoa, what an improvement, man. Now you convinced me. Not that the optimization is useful, mind you, but that you are a marauding saboteur sent by the evil minions at Microsoft on a mission to make open source software look bad. -- felix-gcc at fefe dot de changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|RESOLVED |UNCONFIRMED Resolution|WONTFIX | http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30475