On Wednesday, July 16, 2014 09:37 PM, Angelo Mondaini wrote:
Yes, same here! As far as I know, "-O3" or "-O2" tries to optimize the memory usage and binary size. However, "-fgnu-tm" also deals with the memory, so, this seems like compatibility problem with both flags. Note that gcc manual for "-fgnu-tm" says: "This is an experimental feature ...". And "-O3" flag includes very aggressive optimizations, sometimes it can fail by it own. I think a bug report would be a good option...
According to the docs: -O2 is "full optimisation" -O3 is "full optimisation with more aggressive inlining and vectorisation" That's a strange description that's possibly no longer true. I don't think either of them optimise for memory or binary size, more for speed (specifically at the expense of binary and memory size). I also don't think either of them "fail by its own", modulo compiler bugs. This idea that high optimisation levels produce incorrect code is strange to me. From what I've seen, aggressive optimisations are more likely to highlight undefined behaviour, but code that relies on undefined behaviour is broken code. The compiler doesn't break correct code, it trusts what you tell it. So please, can we stop the FUD and just get on with a fix; either in the library or the compiler, for technical or practical reasons. Ben