From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-return-116620-listarch-gcc=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 16454 invoked by alias); 30 Jun 2005 21:30:37 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/>
Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 16432 invoked by uid 22791); 30 Jun 2005 21:30:34 -0000
Received: from mail-out3.apple.com (HELO mail-out3.apple.com) (17.254.13.22)
    by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.30-dev) with ESMTP; Thu, 30 Jun 2005 21:30:34 +0000
Received: from mailgate2.apple.com (a17-128-100-204.apple.com [17.128.100.204])
	by mail-out3.apple.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j5ULUWCE005510
	for <gcc@gcc.gnu.org>; Thu, 30 Jun 2005 14:30:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from relay4.apple.com (relay4.apple.com) by mailgate2.apple.com
 (Content Technologies SMTPRS 4.3.17) with ESMTP id <T71da10b372118064cc36c@mailgate2.apple.com>;
 Thu, 30 Jun 2005 14:30:32 -0700
Received: from [17.201.21.188] (jahan5.apple.com [17.201.21.188])
	by relay4.apple.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j5ULUTD5006043;
	Thu, 30 Jun 2005 14:30:30 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <200506302147.15097.stevenb@suse.de>
References: <B7C12C01-DBA8-4F56-9DF3-4BE0C45D5ADD@apple.com> <1120155806.4621.233.camel@localhost.localdomain> <DA02021B-4192-42DB-BB1E-D50FAC3D8386@apple.com> <200506302147.15097.stevenb@suse.de>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v728)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed
Message-Id: <44CA7C61-D97F-4C52-81B9-3302DF0DEB9C@apple.com>
Cc: law@redhat.com, Bernd Schmidt <bernds_cb1@t-online.de>, gcc@gcc.gnu.org,
        Richard Henderson <rth@redhat.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Fariborz Jahanian <fjahanian@apple.com>
Subject: Re: [RFH] - Less than optimal code compiling 252.eon -O2 for x86
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2005 21:30:00 -0000
To: Steven Bosscher <stevenb@suse.de>
X-SW-Source: 2005-06/txt/msg01331.txt.bz2


On Jun 30, 2005, at 12:47 PM, Steven Bosscher wrote:

>
> Well, maybe so, but it would be a pretty lame workaround.  Why are you
> so worried about bugs?  This flag was always disabled at -O1, and we
> have never seen any bug reports that got fixed with -fforced-mem.  And
> besides, it is better to fix bugs than to work around them.
>
> Making the option a nop, issuing a warning in 4.1 and removing the
> option completely for gcc 4.2 looks like a very reasonable approach to
> me.
>

OK. This seems to be the consensus and I will prepare a patch base on  
that.

- Thanks, fariborz

> Gr.
> Steven
>
>