From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10860 invoked by alias); 22 Mar 2004 04:00:26 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 10853 invoked from network); 22 Mar 2004 04:00:25 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mallard.mail.pas.earthlink.net) (207.217.120.48) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 22 Mar 2004 04:00:25 -0000 Received: from sdn-ap-011tnnashp0210.dialsprint.net ([63.189.232.210] helo=chatta.us) by mallard.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 1B5Gbn-0002b0-00; Sun, 21 Mar 2004 20:00:16 -0800 Message-ID: <405E6708.70508@chatta.us> Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 12:45:00 -0000 From: "R. D. Flowers" Reply-To: base@chatta.us User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win98; en-US; rv:1.7a) Gecko/20031129 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Gabriel Dos Reis CC: Robert Dewar , Zack Weinberg , gcc@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: jFP religious wars References: <1079845736.15963.ezmlm@gcc.gnu.org> <405E0544.6020905@chatta.us> <878yhtkis8.fsf@egil.codesourcery.com> <405E5198.4020009@gnat.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2004-03/txt/msg01285.txt.bz2 Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: > Robert Dewar writes: > > | Zack Weinberg wrote: > | > "R. D. Flowers" writes: > | > > | >>would not some flag like -fp-pedantic (or however to fit in the > | >>namespace) be a good idea (for both decent sets of folks: the > | >>fast-and-a-little-dirty and the clean-and-a-little-slow people)? > | > Maybe. What would it do? > | > | I don't think this would work. There is nothing "pedantic" in > | the carefully formulated rules that make it easier/possible > | to write accurate floating-point code. It is far better to > | have the existing flags for -ffast-math etc, which clearly > | warn that the resulting semantics may be unreliable. > > Fully agreed. > > | The use of -pedantic to cover little used language features > | or rules is one thing, the use of a flag like this to give > | incorrect semantics. Welllll, as far as what to do, you folks probably do in fact know best. But, if some code is broken by -pedantic, isn't it also incorrect in SOME picky litte sense? That people in some of their actual situations might not care about? Similar (in some actual situations) to not caring about that final shred of accuracy? > > In fact, the flag "-pedantic" is misnamed -- at least, for what it does > currently in C++ (I think the same is true for C). It is there only > for historical accident. Multiplying that naming by a factor greater > than 1 would be misguided. > > -- Gaby > > > -- R. D. Flowers, O. H. Xinna R. Coloohiy The Bear At Home Now a single dad. I M i s s A m e r i c a http://chalice.us/mylinks http://chalice.us/pho http://chalice.us/poe http://chatta.us/resume.txt Mailing lists at http://chatta.us -- "He who cannot protect himself or his nearest and dearest or their honor by non-violently facing death may and ought to do so by violently dealing with the oppressor. He who can do neither of the two is a burden." -- Mohandes Ghandi Refer ! Stop Tritium !