Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

Minimalistic fast math support #551

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from
Open

Minimalistic fast math support #551

wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

serge-sans-paille
Copy link
Contributor

No description provided.

@serge-sans-paille serge-sans-paille force-pushed the feature/fast-math-support branch from c1d20d4 to ffaec96 Compare September 2, 2021 05:44
@serge-sans-paille serge-sans-paille force-pushed the feature/fast-math-support branch from b20a6ea to 66e950d Compare October 12, 2021 19:38
@serge-sans-paille serge-sans-paille mentioned this pull request Oct 12, 2021
Open
@SylvainCorlay
Copy link
Member

Does this actually enable the testing?

@serge-sans-paille
Copy link
Contributor Author

No, I gave up with testing under -ffast-math because it breaks a lot of function and I'm notsure we want to actually support that. This PR is just to help for #550 . Just renamed it.

@serge-sans-paille serge-sans-paille changed the title Enable testing under fast-math Minimalistic fast math support Oct 13, 2021
@JohanMabille JohanMabille force-pushed the master branch 3 times, most recently from 6c6dc1f to 52984ef Compare October 14, 2021 12:16
@RafaGago
Copy link

RafaGago commented Oct 16, 2021 •
edited
Loading

As with the other fix based on volatile, my opinion, independently of it works or not here and now, is that I don't know how prone is to silently breaking in future versions of any compiler.

For me to introduce a fix like this I'd have to be sure to know why it works now and why it didn't before, which means to do some reading of the C++ standard (a boring chore). This doesn't mean that the code is incorrect. Just that I see it as risky code because I don't really know why this is good and the other version was bad.

If this would my codebase, I'd probably explain what is going on with the reorderings either as a comment on the code or on the commit message body.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers
No reviews
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
3 participants
@serge-sans-paille @SylvainCorlay @RafaGago