| 1 |
On 25/02/2013 22:32, Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 2 |
> That isn't the same as saying that we can just break it in cases where |
| 3 |
> it actually is appropriate. Calculating scroll bar movement is |
| 4 |
> exactly the sort of thing that this flag was actually designed for - |
| 5 |
> you don't care if it is off by 1/100th of a pixel. |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
Rich.. please... don't try to talk about things you don't understand. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
If Chromium is not building *by itself* on -ffast-math, we should *not* |
| 10 |
support building it with it. Full stop. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
It's not that adding -ffast-math loses the 1/100th precision on a scroll |
| 13 |
bar pixel: it has a truckload of changes to the whole mathematics in the |
| 14 |
code, which _among other things_ will break that scrollbar, because the |
| 15 |
calculation used to display it add up to a huge difference. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
So no, I don't care if -ffast-math "breaks" in the sense that stuff that |
| 18 |
does not build with -ffast-math to begin with work even less with the |
| 19 |
new version — I would be wondering about it if it broke stuff that |
| 20 |
already is designed to rely on it, but even in that case, it's hard to |
| 21 |
actually say that it "broke", it's just "different". |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
-- |
| 24 |
Diego Elio Pettenò — Flameeyes |
| 25 |
flameeyes@×××××××××.eu — http://blog.flameeyes.eu/ |
Archives