Re:Std: Clamp generates less efficient assembly than std:min...
by mort96 on Tuesday January 16, 2024 @10:11AM
(#39014102)
What you really should enable is the fun and safe math optimizations, with -funsafe-math-optimizations.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Std: Clamp generates less efficient assembly than std:min...
by aqfamnzc on Tuesday January 16, 2024 @11:06AM
(#39014904)
I know almost nothing about compiler flags but I got a laugh out of this even though I still don't know if you're joking or not.
Edit: Just read it again and now I understand the joke. Haha
Re:Std: Clamp generates less efficient assembly than std:min...
by kevincox on Tuesday January 16, 2024 @12:02PM
(#39015623)
To others `-f` is a common prefix for GCC flags. You can think of this as "enable feature". So -funsafe-math-operations should be read as (-f) (unsafe-math-operations). Not (-)(funsafe-math-operations).
Re:Std: Clamp generates less efficient assembly than std:min...
by arcticbull on Tuesday January 16, 2024 @02:20PM
(#39017690)
I kind of like the idea the flag is sarcastically calling them very fun and very safe.
Re:Std: Clamp generates less efficient assembly than std:min...
by dekhn on Tuesday January 16, 2024 @03:41PM
(#39018843)
don't forget libiberty which is linked in using -liberty
(and freedom for all)
Re:Std: Clamp generates less efficient assembly than std:min...
by cozzyd on Tuesday January 16, 2024 @04:21PM
(#39019309)
strangely I'm not aware of a libibre.
Re:Std: Clamp generates less efficient assembly than std:min...
by dekhn on Tuesday January 16, 2024 @04:53PM
(#39019666)
oh, that's called -lmojito