From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 29515 invoked by alias); 20 Mar 2007 14:03:28 -0000 Received: (qmail 29409 invoked by uid 48); 20 Mar 2007 14:03:07 -0000 Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 14:03:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20070320140307.29408.qmail@sourceware.org> X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC References: Subject: [Bug middle-end/31249] pseudo-optimzation with sincos/cexpi In-Reply-To: Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org From: "dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr" 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: 2007-03/txt/msg01929.txt.bz2 ------- Comment #9 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2007-03-20 14:03 ------- > I agree it's surprising to get user-visible effects with the > TARGET_C99_FUNCTIONS difference between the frontends, > but they are (supposed to) providing C99 runtime completion > by their runtime libraries. And they rely on full C99 support. Do you mean that g++ and gfortran set TARGET_C99_FUNCTIONS on their own? If yes, the cexpi optimization should probably another condition: what is the point to replace sin+cos by a call to a function calling sin+cos? -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31249