[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Why you are wrong [Was: On linux kernel packaging issue]

On Tue, Nov 11, 2003 at 09:24:35PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 10, 2003 at 05:08:48PM -0600, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
> > Of course, I'm far from a compiler and chip design expert (or even
> > novice); this is what I remember from my classes last year. :) But it
> > shows how complicated optimizing compilers can get, and why you can't
> > say any optimization is always good/safe/faster/etc. The only truly safe
> > way to tell is extensive, controlled benchmarking.
> An optimisation that makes things unsafe or slower isn't an
> optimisation. The compiler shouldn't produce any code that is incorrect
> or slower. Of course, it can't stop you from taking a P4-optimised
> binary and running it on an Athlon.
> I think you could say that any optimisation is safe and not slower;
> otherwise it's not an optimisation.

Mmm. -ffast-math and -funsafe-math-optimizations, off the top of my

  .''`.  ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
 : :' :  http://www.debian.org/ |
 `. `'                          |
   `-             -><-          |

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: