From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeffrey A Law To: Marc Espie Cc: N8TM@aol.com, egcs@egcs.cygnus.com Subject: Re: type based aliasing again Date: Thu, 30 Sep 1999 18:02:00 -0000 Message-ID: <7583.937307683@upchuck.cygnus.com> References: <199909141102.NAA18232@quatramaran.ens.fr> X-SW-Source: 1999-09n/msg00598.html Message-ID: <19990930180200.fhuSLNma5R-cyKZTaJYCsKcrYpy9h4O0go-a2CohpS8@z> In message < 199909141102.NAA18232@quatramaran.ens.fr >you write: > Therefore, I don't believe moving -fstrict-aliasing to -O3 or -O4 is a > good idea. It's an issue of whether we consider this optimization as > `safe' or `unsafe'. In the first case, it's a -O2 trigger, probably -Os > as well, as it should decrease the code size. In the second case, I see > no reason to treat it differently from -ffast-math. If you write correct code, the compiler will generate correct code with strict aliasing. If you write incorrect code, all bets are off. It's not significantly different than automatic register allocation -- if you write correct code, automatic register allocation will generate correct code. If you write incorrect code, all bets are off. Do you really want to punish people who write correct code just because your code is not correct? jeff