| 1 |
On 25/02/13 22:32, Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 4:18 PM, Tom Wijsman <TomWij@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
>> Though people that use -ffast-math / -fLTO / -fuse-linker-plugin should |
| 4 |
>> be on their own, thus I drop -ffast-math because it breaks my browser; |
| 5 |
>> but that doesn't mean that those ricer flags should stop stabilization. |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> If we're talking about for general use in CFLAGs clearly -ffast-math |
| 8 |
> isn't something that even could be supported if we wanted to. The |
| 9 |
> flag is just not intended for general use. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
And if you stop here everything would be agreeable. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
> That isn't the same as saying that we can just break it in cases where |
| 14 |
> it actually is appropriate. Calculating scroll bar movement is |
| 15 |
> exactly the sort of thing that this flag was actually designed for - |
| 16 |
> you don't care if it is off by 1/100th of a pixel. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
Please check your facts. using -ffast-math could do anything from |
| 19 |
nothing to cause severe security issues. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
> But, the way to track that sort of a thing is to log those as bugs |
| 22 |
> against appropriate use within individual apps and make them blockers. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
No. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
> I'd consider things like this valid bugs - but whether they hold |
| 27 |
> things up should depend on real-world impact. I'm not sure how bad |
| 28 |
> the impact on chromium actually is. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
Absolutely not. Some code is _designed_ to work w/out caring about ieee |
| 31 |
corner cases and some is _designed_ to work leveraging them. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
NOT bug. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
To reinstate: if you use -ffast-math or other |
| 36 |
known-to-alter-the-standard-behaviour or, even worst, experimental flags |
| 37 |
you are on your own. |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
lu |
Archives