From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Stephen L Moshier To: N8TM@aol.com Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: type based aliasing again Date: Sat, 18 Sep 1999 07:30:00 -0000 Message-id: X-SW-Source: 1999-09/msg00790.html > I suppose we have no say on the > peculiar in-lining scheme with glibc; apparently on at -O and -O2, > unless specifically turned off; always off at -Os even when it > would save space. This sounds like glibc is violating the rule that optimization is not supposed to change the value of expressions. Why do we even permit glibc to know what -O switch was used? Surely glibc should not give different math.h answers depending on compiler optimization! That kind of behavior should be under the user's control. It has long been customary to offer several different math libraries designed for various different purposes. Maybe glibc should follow that custom. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Stephen L Moshier To: N8TM@aol.com Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: type based aliasing again Date: Thu, 30 Sep 1999 18:02:00 -0000 Message-ID: X-SW-Source: 1999-09n/msg00790.html Message-ID: <19990930180200.pzyNIB6xE2oGTvQ2L-Y7uJYiNMYkuSoyeJrugIpuTPU@z> > I suppose we have no say on the > peculiar in-lining scheme with glibc; apparently on at -O and -O2, > unless specifically turned off; always off at -Os even when it > would save space. This sounds like glibc is violating the rule that optimization is not supposed to change the value of expressions. Why do we even permit glibc to know what -O switch was used? Surely glibc should not give different math.h answers depending on compiler optimization! That kind of behavior should be under the user's control. It has long been customary to offer several different math libraries designed for various different purposes. Maybe glibc should follow that custom.