From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 24069 invoked by alias); 29 Mar 2003 03:56:01 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-prs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-prs-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 24053 invoked by uid 71); 29 Mar 2003 03:56:01 -0000 Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 04:06:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20030329035601.24052.qmail@sources.redhat.com> To: nobody@gcc.gnu.org Cc: gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org, From: "David O'Brien" Subject: Re: optimization/10189: pentium4 breaks suns libm code for __ieee754_pow(double x, double y) Reply-To: "David O'Brien" X-SW-Source: 2003-03/txt/msg02036.txt.bz2 List-Id: The following reply was made to PR optimization/10189; it has been noted by GNATS. From: "David O'Brien" To: Alexander Leidinger Cc: gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org, freebsd-current@freebsd.org, gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org, nobody@gcc.gnu.org, ljrittle@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: optimization/10189: pentium4 breaks suns libm code for __ieee754_pow(double x, double y) Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 19:46:27 -0800 On Wed, Mar 26, 2003 at 10:09:34PM +0100, Alexander Leidinger wrote: > And trust me, as long as gcc ships with a description of other > optimizations beneath "-O" there will be (clueless or smart... does it > really matter here?) people which will try those optimizations on > everything Not to mention bullshit ones like "-O9". I see that all the time. What do these poeple think they are buying with that????? GCC should stop accepting -O values higher than what does anything.