1 |
On Thursday 28 September 2006 16:17, Barry.SCHWARTZ@×××××××××××××.org wrote |
2 |
about 'Optimizations (was Re: [gentoo-amd64] First Impressions)': |
3 |
> "Boyd Stephen Smith Jr." <bss03@××××××××××.net> skribis: |
4 |
> > Now, I have to problem with developers closing some bug opened by a |
5 |
> > ricer out there that's added -ffast-math to their CFLAGS as |
6 |
> > WONTFIX/INVALID since it's not really a problem. All the parts |
7 |
> > provided by Gentoo (ebuild, source, compiler, portage, etc.) all |
8 |
> > behaving properly. It's just that, just like the warning says, |
9 |
> > programs WILL break |
10 |
> > under -ffast-math. |
11 |
> |
12 |
> I have to disagree with this strongly, because -ffast-math means you |
13 |
> want code that violates the IEEE floating point standard. |
14 |
|
15 |
Sorry, I mistyped "no" as "to" in the first sentence which completely |
16 |
changed my meaning. I agree that -ffast-math ricers could have their bugs |
17 |
closed with prejudice. -ffast-math is basically something that should |
18 |
only be allowed on a per-package basis, after consulting with upstream. |
19 |
|
20 |
> > > Indeed, there aren’t many fields of ‘production’ in which end users |
21 |
> > > ought to be encouraged to try things that expose flaws in design or |
22 |
> > > manufacture. |
23 |
> > I disagree. I want to know about those flaws, and I want the |
24 |
> > manufactures to fix them -- which is why I like Consumer Reports so |
25 |
> > much. :) |
26 |
> It’s one thing to read Consumer Reports and have it say your SUV rolls |
27 |
> over easily, and another to drive in a manner likely to roll your SUV |
28 |
> over. It’s even worse to sort of hold SUV drivers hostage by |
29 |
> encouraging them to roll over their SUVs unless and until the |
30 |
> manufacturer fixes the SUV. People should be encouraged to drive their |
31 |
> dangerous vehicles safely, and so should users be encouraged to set |
32 |
> their CFLAGS safely. |
33 |
|
34 |
I encourage users to try to roll their SUVs safely. :) |
35 |
|
36 |
If you are running a nuclear power plant off of Gentoo, then I hope you are |
37 |
going quite a bit further than just not using -O3. |
38 |
|
39 |
However, using -O3 is usually dangerous to only the user themselves (at |
40 |
most) so I see no problem encouraging it. |
41 |
|
42 |
That said, once somebody figures out (and publishes) that when you do X, Y, |
43 |
and Z to brand A SUV it rolls over. I'd discourage doing X, Y, and Z to |
44 |
brand A SUVs (it'll cost you an SUV and really doesn't provide much |
45 |
benefit). I'd encourage to X, Y, and Z to brand B, C, and D SUVs |
46 |
(*safely*) so that we can determine if the manufacturing flaw affects them |
47 |
as well. |
48 |
|
49 |
-- |
50 |
"If there's one thing we've established over the years, |
51 |
it's that the vast majority of our users don't have the slightest |
52 |
clue what's best for them in terms of package stability." |
53 |
-- Gentoo Developer Ciaran McCreesh |