From: Harald Anlauf <anlauf@gmx.de>
To: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
Cc: fortran@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: [patch, fortran, doc] Explicitly mention undefined overflow
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2023 22:32:05 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <07608206-8ec1-6c78-c85c-a4c261a5aacd@gmx.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <83ed6780-22ac-bb57-d80c-c4d3a2c6b773@netcologne.de>
Hi Thomas,
Am 20.03.23 um 08:14 schrieb Thomas Koenig via Gcc-patches:
> so it the general problem is not restricted to -O3 and not
> to current trunk, it depends on the details.
>
> I doubt that the result from 9.4.0 was expected, but rather
> nobody noticed. Or, bringing out the pseudo-RNG into a
> different setting changed things.
>
> So... any suggestions on how to improve the current wording?
how about changing:
"... relying on a specific, non-standard behavior may now generate
unexpected results."
to
"... relying on a specific, non-standard behavior may generate
unexpected results depending on optimization level and other compiler
flags."
We cannot know all the codes used in the wild ...
Cheers,
Harald
> Best regards
>
> Thomas
>
>
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID
From: Harald Anlauf <anlauf@gmx.de>
To: Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de>,
Paul Richard Thomas <paul.richard.thomas@gmail.com>
Cc: "fortran@gcc.gnu.org" <fortran@gcc.gnu.org>,
gcc-patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
Subject: Re: [patch, fortran, doc] Explicitly mention undefined overflow
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2023 22:32:05 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <07608206-8ec1-6c78-c85c-a4c261a5aacd@gmx.de> (raw)
Message-ID: <20230320213205.J2kjJ5d01_OdHP45WJ8Ai-dl1w08f5Go60nO6xogUsQ@z> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <83ed6780-22ac-bb57-d80c-c4d3a2c6b773@netcologne.de>
Hi Thomas,
Am 20.03.23 um 08:14 schrieb Thomas Koenig via Gcc-patches:
> so it the general problem is not restricted to -O3 and not
> to current trunk, it depends on the details.
>
> I doubt that the result from 9.4.0 was expected, but rather
> nobody noticed. Or, bringing out the pseudo-RNG into a
> different setting changed things.
>
> So... any suggestions on how to improve the current wording?
how about changing:
"... relying on a specific, non-standard behavior may now generate
unexpected results."
to
"... relying on a specific, non-standard behavior may generate
unexpected results depending on optimization level and other compiler
flags."
We cannot know all the codes used in the wild ...
Cheers,
Harald
> Best regards
>
> Thomas
>
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-03-20 21:32 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-03-19 8:32 Thomas Koenig
2023-03-19 13:12 ` Paul Richard Thomas
2023-03-19 17:40 ` Thomas Koenig
2023-03-20 7:14 ` Thomas Koenig
2023-03-20 21:32 ` Harald Anlauf [this message]
2023-03-20 21:32 ` Harald Anlauf
2023-03-19 13:15 ` Andreas Schwab
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=07608206-8ec1-6c78-c85c-a4c261a5aacd@gmx.de \
--to=anlauf@gmx.de \
--cc=fortran@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).