From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-patches-return-277736-listarch-gcc-patches=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 12729 invoked by alias); 8 Nov 2010 22:58:18 -0000
Received: (qmail 12717 invoked by uid 22791); 8 Nov 2010 22:58:17 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.8 required=5.0	tests=AWL,BAYES_00,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from mail.codesourcery.com (HELO mail.codesourcery.com) (38.113.113.100)    by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 08 Nov 2010 22:58:13 +0000
Received: (qmail 23438 invoked from network); 8 Nov 2010 22:58:11 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO digraph.polyomino.org.uk) (joseph@127.0.0.2)  by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 8 Nov 2010 22:58:11 -0000
Received: from jsm28 (helo=localhost)	by digraph.polyomino.org.uk with local-esmtp (Exim 4.72)	(envelope-from <joseph@codesourcery.com>)	id 1PFafC-0006FL-De; Mon, 08 Nov 2010 22:58:10 +0000
Date: Mon, 08 Nov 2010 23:14:00 -0000
From: "Joseph S. Myers" <joseph@codesourcery.com>
To: Richard Henderson <rth@redhat.com>
cc: Steve Ellcey <sje@cup.hp.com>, Richard Guenther <rguenther@suse.de>,     gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: -mfused-madd vs -ffp-contract deprication?
In-Reply-To: <4CD84DCB.5080806@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1011082257140.23307@digraph.polyomino.org.uk>
References: <201011081911.oA8JBqS23929@lucas.cup.hp.com> <4CD84DCB.5080806@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-patches.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org
X-SW-Source: 2010-11/txt/msg00818.txt.bz2

On Mon, 8 Nov 2010, Richard Henderson wrote:

> On 11/08/2010 11:11 AM, Steve Ellcey wrote:
> > This patch seems to have broken -mno-fused-madd on IA64.  I don't
> > know if it has broken it on other platforms too.
> 
> Probably.
> 
> I wonder about making -mfused-madd a generic alias for -ffp-contract,
> and removing it from the backends.  With an appropriate warning, we
> ought to be able to remove -mfused-madd in gcc 4.7.

As I indicated in 
<http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-10/msg01884.html>, this may depend 
on the actual intended semantics of existing -mfused-madd options (which I 
have not attempted to discern).

-- 
Joseph S. Myers
joseph@codesourcery.com