X-pop3-spooler: POP3MAIL 2.1.0 b 4 980420 -bs- Message-ID: <19980909212933.55079@cerebro.laendle> Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1998 21:29:33 +0200 From: Marc Lehmann To: Steven Snyder , pgcc mailing list Subject: Re: Is -fstrength-reduce unstable? Mail-Followup-To: Steven Snyder , pgcc mailing list References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: ; from Steven Snyder on Wed, Sep 09, 1998 at 01:22:27PM -0500 X-Operating-System: Linux version 2.1.120 (root AT cerebro) (gcc version pgcc-2.91.57 19980901 (egcs-1.1 release)) Status: RO Content-Length: 1187 Lines: 24 On Wed, Sep 09, 1998 at 01:22:27PM -0500, Steven Snyder wrote: > I see a lot of software packages whose compilation uses the > -fno-strength-reduce switch. (I'm reminded of this because I'm building > glibc right now and it uses that switch as well.) > > Is strength reduction known to be buggy? And if so, why is it enabled by > default? Its not perfect, but its as safe as almost every other part of the compiler. Back in linux-1.3, the kernel hit a bug with -fstrength-reduce, and all people suddenly though "see how buggy gcc is", even when, in fact, they work fine. But there is a reason why (some!) software packages use this switch, as it sometimes (rare) decreases performance. But normally you wouldn't want to disable strength reduction. -----==- | ----==-- _ | ---==---(_)__ __ ____ __ Marc Lehmann +-- --==---/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ / pcg AT goof DOT com |e| -=====/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\ --+ The choice of a GNU generation | |