mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Geert Bosch <bosch@adacore.com>
To: Segher Boessenkool <segher@kernel.crashing.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>,
	akpm@osdl.org, Albert Cahalan <acahalan@gmail.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, s0348365@sms.ed.ac.uk,
	bunk@stusta.de, mikpe@it.uu.se
Subject: Re: kernel + gcc 4.1 = several problems
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2007 17:02:48 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <7171DDC6-A144-4DFD-96F1-B2DEEF09C5B0@adacore.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <d913acf949f84c6dec496a1f52c1f9f5@kernel.crashing.org>


On Jan 4, 2007, at 13:34, Segher Boessenkool wrote:

> The "signed wrap is undefined" thing doesn't fit in this category
> though:
>
> -- It is an important optimisation for loops with a signed
>    induction variable;

It certainly isn't that important. Even SpecINT compiled with
-O3 and top-of-tree GCC *improves* 1% by adding -fwrapv.
If the compiler itself can rely on wrap-around semantics and
doesn't have to worry about introducing overflows between
optimization passes, it can reorder simple chains of additions.
This is more important for many real-world applications than
being able to perform some complex loop-interchange.
Compiler developers always make the mistake of overrating
their optimizations.

If GCC does really poorly on a few important loops that matter,
that issue is easily addressed. If GCC generates unreliable
code for millions of boring lines of important real-world C,
the compiler is worthless.

   -Geert

  reply	other threads:[~2007-01-04 23:04 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 60+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2007-01-04  7:11 Albert Cahalan
2007-01-04 16:43 ` Segher Boessenkool
2007-01-04 17:04   ` Albert Cahalan
2007-01-04 17:24     ` Segher Boessenkool
2007-01-04 17:47       ` Linus Torvalds
2007-01-04 18:53         ` Segher Boessenkool
2007-01-04 19:10         ` Al Viro
2007-01-05 17:17       ` Pavel Machek
2007-01-06  8:23         ` Segher Boessenkool
2007-01-04 17:37     ` Linus Torvalds
2007-01-04 18:34       ` Segher Boessenkool
2007-01-04 22:02         ` Geert Bosch [this message]
2007-01-07  4:25       ` Denis Vlasenko
2007-01-07  4:45         ` Linus Torvalds
2007-01-07  5:26           ` Jeff Garzik
2007-01-07 15:10         ` Segher Boessenkool
2007-01-26 22:05           ` Michael K. Edwards
2007-01-04 18:08     ` Andreas Schwab
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2007-01-03  2:12 Mikael Pettersson
2007-01-03  2:20 ` Alistair John Strachan
2007-01-05 15:53   ` Alistair John Strachan
2007-01-05 16:02     ` Linus Torvalds
2007-01-05 16:19       ` Alistair John Strachan
2007-01-05 16:49         ` Linus Torvalds
2007-01-07  0:36           ` Pavel Machek
2007-01-07  0:57             ` Alistair John Strachan
2007-01-03  5:55 ` Willy Tarreau
2007-01-03 10:29 ` Alan
2007-01-03 10:32   ` Grzegorz Kulewski
2007-01-03 11:51     ` Jeff Garzik
2007-01-03 12:44     ` Alan
2007-01-03 13:32       ` Arjan van de Ven
2007-01-03 13:58         ` Jakub Jelinek
2007-01-03 14:28         ` Alan
2007-01-03 16:06           ` Linus Torvalds
2007-01-03 16:03     ` Linus Torvalds
2007-01-03 17:01       ` l.genoni
2007-01-03 17:45         ` Tim Schmielau
2007-01-03 20:24           ` Linus Torvalds
2007-01-03 17:06       ` l.genoni
2007-01-03 17:53       ` Mariusz Kozlowski
2007-01-03 19:47       ` Denis Vlasenko
2007-01-03 20:38         ` Linus Torvalds
2007-01-03 21:48           ` Denis Vlasenko
2007-01-03 22:13             ` Linus Torvalds
2007-01-03 21:44       ` Thomas Sailer
2007-01-03 22:08         ` Linus Torvalds
2007-01-04  3:08       ` Zou, Nanhai
2007-01-04 15:34         ` Linus Torvalds
2006-12-20 14:21 Oops in 2.6.19.1 Alistair John Strachan
2006-12-30 16:59 ` Alistair John Strachan
2006-12-31 16:27   ` Adrian Bunk
2006-12-31 16:55     ` Alistair John Strachan
2007-01-02 21:10       ` kernel + gcc 4.1 = several problems Adrian Bunk
2007-01-02 21:56         ` Alistair John Strachan
2007-01-02 22:06           ` D. Hazelton
2007-01-02 23:24             ` Adrian Bunk
2007-01-02 23:41               ` D. Hazelton
2007-01-03  2:05                 ` Horst H. von Brand
2007-01-02 22:13           ` Linus Torvalds
2007-01-02 23:18             ` Alistair John Strachan
2007-01-03  1:43               ` Linus Torvalds
2007-01-02 22:01         ` Linus Torvalds
2007-01-02 23:09           ` David Rientjes

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=7171DDC6-A144-4DFD-96F1-B2DEEF09C5B0@adacore.com \
    --to=bosch@adacore.com \
    --cc=acahalan@gmail.com \
    --cc=akpm@osdl.org \
    --cc=bunk@stusta.de \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mikpe@it.uu.se \
    --cc=s0348365@sms.ed.ac.uk \
    --cc=segher@kernel.crashing.org \
    --cc=torvalds@osdl.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox

all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®