On Wed, 2003-08-06 23:08:22 +0200, Matthias Klose <doko@cs.tu-berlin.de>
wrote in message <[🔎] 16177.28230.634867.251269@gargle.gargle.HOWL>:
> Jan-Benedict Glaw writes:
> > i386 seems to die, sun4m also does have servere problems... Where does
> > this lead to? All these seem to arise from doing optimization which
> > hasn't been proved to (really) make things better... Everything I see is
> > that it's breaking stuff.
>
> the ix86 change was for _compatibility_ reasons, not for
> _performance_.
I know. Compatibility. To whom? Compatibility to allow someone to copy a
eg. SuSE C++ binary over to a debian box. Why may it crash (or work in
some undefined way)? Because it was optimized for i486+, or did I get
the whole thing wrong?
Am I wrong or did we, "forced" because we wanted to be binary compatible
to some major distributions, just follow others and doing optimization
just as they did?
See, I'm not ranting over this one special "bug" introduced into
libstdc++5, I'm not ranting on hwmath on sparc (esp. in kernel:), but
I'm ranting on the common movement to optimize a case and break another.
MfG, JBG
--
Jan-Benedict Glaw jbglaw@lug-owl.de . +49-172-7608481
"Eine Freie Meinung in einem Freien Kopf | Gegen Zensur | Gegen Krieg
fuer einen Freien Staat voll Freier Bürger" | im Internet! | im Irak!
ret = do_actions((curr | FREE_SPEECH) & ~(IRAQ_WAR_2 | DRM | TCPA));
Attachment:
pgpqPtjj1lagm.pgp
Description: PGP signature