From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr@codesourcery.com>
To: Theodore Papadopoulo <Theodore.Papadopoulo@sophia.inria.fr>
Cc: Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr@codesourcery.com>, dewar@gnat.com, amylaar@redhat.com, aoliva@redhat.com, gcc@gcc.gnu.org, moshier@moshier.ne.mediaone.net, torvalds@transmeta.com, tprince@computer.org
Subject: Re: What is acceptable for -ffast-math? (Was: associative law in combine)
Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2001 09:15:00 -0000
Message-id: <fl7kwniwox.fsf@jambon.cmla.ens-cachan.fr>
References: <200108011555.f71Ft4q07786@mururoa.inria.fr>
X-SW-Source: 2001-08/msg00041.html

Theodore Papadopoulo <Theodore.Papadopoulo@sophia.inria.fr> writes:

| gdr@codesourcery.com said:
| > That doesn't mean I don't want optimization.  I do love optimization.
| > By optimization, I really mean optimization. 
| 
| No by optimisation, you mean mathematically provable safe optimisation and 

No, I do mean a transformation which does not dramatically transmute 
the computations.  

Where did you get the idea that I meant "mathematically provable safe
optimisation"?

We're talking here of transformations which we do know able to
drastically change the results.
Going into abstract considerations like NP-completness is beside the
point. 

-- Gaby