From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1525 invoked by alias); 7 Feb 2020 22:55:22 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 1513 invoked by uid 89); 7 Feb 2020 22:55:21 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KAM_SHORT autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 spammy= X-HELO: esa1.mentor.iphmx.com Received: from esa1.mentor.iphmx.com (HELO esa1.mentor.iphmx.com) (68.232.129.153) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Fri, 07 Feb 2020 22:55:20 +0000 IronPort-SDR: wWl8aMIx+PZoZQJfWnnJ0rTUzzclaByb2x8IcyYVG6mT1+dxH+OtyBI3hJQIt5KBvF3n9bJg7L iaIrFl6U3DPUssWW3j6ipJ4Rpbrl/wxdrY4F9/AFnX4FI7aPbnFVXwnOBV+KDelDVlN/kTG0G0 Ibb4+C0eslv8Zyr4w4jqWUukcIYQgJrpkZOU58mWC2OoAlkmjxHGnkTIbaqc4mC5mdE/07xNRY +7SCOHarx40FqJKBs84OrWQ0aatPfjz9OJbsNNu4E4w3ZytoDOOL3/ragDUip233Gn1T4XuPf5 K3U= Received: from orw-gwy-01-in.mentorg.com ([192.94.38.165]) by esa1.mentor.iphmx.com with ESMTP; 07 Feb 2020 14:55:19 -0800 IronPort-SDR: 83HcXg2ZMO//jQykbHR3Dpf/rWkVtrUzN1NXq+qkM4CS19QapiaHWw9pYnUxFo7TcnFP0gw9PK C9j2eOOK2ovL+bgq/23aTAfOhp9Eotrgn3lcCHq10BbbtOBC71ZtGOkFAHDEANsMIHfITSgWED e/1N6Bpx9JtRtgRReOiVy19c7pPBkIzZoVdIfWLw/8wqCgwHVfgWS9EM2ubuSrvBPWlp0afSXL HKIVcPuMXga29cJDU5cQ9LDMajLb55SCesocp/6/lGHPYyUr+m6Db4eA6wfB8WSNkJhhGBhOvq 9t4= Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2020 22:55:00 -0000 From: Joseph Myers To: Ulrich Weigand CC: Richard Biener , GCC Patches Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix -ffast-math flags handling inconsistencies In-Reply-To: <20200207164732.24E0DD802A9@oc3748833570.ibm.com> Message-ID: References: <20200207164732.24E0DD802A9@oc3748833570.ibm.com> User-Agent: Alpine 2.21 (DEB 202 2017-01-01) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Return-Path: joseph@codesourcery.com X-SW-Source: 2020-02/txt/msg00467.txt.bz2 On Fri, 7 Feb 2020, Ulrich Weigand wrote: > I thought that a *more specific* option like -fsignalling-nans was always > intended to override a more generic option like -ffast-math, no matter > whether it comes before or after it on the command line. Yes, that's correct. (There are cases where it's ambiguous which option is more specific - see what I said in about -Werror= - but I don't think -ffast-math involves such cases.) -- Joseph S. Myers joseph@codesourcery.com