From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr@codesourcery.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@transmeta.com>
Cc: Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr@codesourcery.com>, <dewar@gnat.com>, <aoliva@redhat.com>, <amylaar@redhat.com>, <gcc@gcc.gnu.org>, <moshier@moshier.ne.mediaone.net>, <tprince@computer.org>
Subject: Re: What is acceptable for -ffast-math? (Was: associative law in  combine)
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2001 20:55:00 -0000
Message-id: <fl7kwocu40.fsf@jambon.cmla.ens-cachan.fr>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0107310945000.1188-100000@penguin.transmeta.com>
X-SW-Source: 2001-07/msg02166.html

Linus Torvalds <torvalds@transmeta.com> writes:

| Look again:
| 
|   {"fast-math", &flag_fast_math, 1,
|    "Improve FP speed by violating ANSI & IEEE rules" },
| 
| and realize that even something simple as "double" doesn't historcially
| have an exact meaning in C (ie you can _not_ assume specific ranges or
| specific IEEE rounding in traditional C - it was left up to the
| implementor to do as best he could with what hardware was available).
| 
| That means that traditionally, you don't even know what overflows or not,

You don't need to have an IEEE implementation before speaking of
overflow.  That is the point you seem to miss.

|   you're arguing for small-mindedness everywhere. ]

like yours?

-- Gaby