From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Phil Edwards To: Linus Torvalds Cc: dewar@gnat.com, tim@hollebeek.com, Theodore.Papadopoulo@sophia.inria.fr, amylaar@redhat.com, aoliva@redhat.com, gcc@gcc.gnu.org, gdr@codesourcery.com, moshier@moshier.ne.mediaone.net, tprince@computer.org Subject: Re: What is acceptable for -ffast-math? (Was: associative law in combine) Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2001 12:06:00 -0000 Message-id: <20010801150755.A1365@disaster.jaj.com> X-SW-Source: 2001-08/msg00091.html To contribute, or not to contribute, that is the question Whether it is better in the long run To continue to post messages to this thread Which goeth round in circles, further and further off-topic. Or to stop posting to it And allow silly arguments to go unchallenged Or on the other hand to stop reading it altogether And by ignoring it, end it. (apologies to Andrew Rilstone) I'm just sort of wondering if there's going to be a patch posted here or on gcc-patches, something in the way of a concrete suggestion. Thus far there's been some name calling, lots of heat, very little light. Maybe someone would care to summarize the topic (e.g., are we restricting the discussion to a particular platform, what exactly is the source of disagreement, etc)? If I recall my flamewar protocol correctly, the next step is ad hominem attacks. Those are always entertaining. Phil ...I wrote "exactly" in a FP thread... that was a mistake... -- Would I had phrases that are not known, utterances that are strange, in new language that has not been used, free from repetition, not an utterance which has grown stale, which men of old have spoken. - anonymous Egyptian scribe, c.1700 BC