From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-return-93203-listarch-gcc=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 31749 invoked by alias); 22 Mar 2004 03:35:23 -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 31736 invoked from network); 22 Mar 2004 03:35:22 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO uniton.integrable-solutions.net) (62.212.99.186)
  by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 22 Mar 2004 03:35:22 -0000
Received: from uniton.integrable-solutions.net (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by uniton.integrable-solutions.net (8.12.3/8.12.3/SuSE Linux 0.6) with ESMTP id i2M3OF9b024342;
	Mon, 22 Mar 2004 04:24:15 +0100
Received: (from gdr@localhost)
	by uniton.integrable-solutions.net (8.12.3/8.12.3/Submit) id i2M3OFiB024341;
	Mon, 22 Mar 2004 04:24:15 +0100
X-Authentication-Warning: uniton.integrable-solutions.net: gdr set sender to gdr@integrable-solutions.net using -f
To: Robert Dewar <dewar@gnat.com>
Cc: Zack Weinberg <zack@codesourcery.com>, "R. D. Flowers" <rd@chatta.us>,
   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>
From: Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr@integrable-solutions.net>
In-Reply-To: <405E5198.4020009@gnat.com>
Organization: Integrable Solutions
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 11:37:00 -0000
Message-ID: <m33c815zts.fsf@uniton.integrable-solutions.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-SW-Source: 2004-03/txt/msg01284.txt.bz2

Robert Dewar <dewar@gnat.com> writes:

| Zack Weinberg wrote:
| > "R. D. Flowers" <rd@chatta.us> 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.

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