From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.3 (2006-06-01) on yquem.inria.fr X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,NO_REAL_NAME autolearn=disabled version=3.1.3 X-Original-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Delivered-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Received: from concorde.inria.fr (concorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.39]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED81EBC69 for ; Sat, 10 Feb 2007 02:36:14 +0100 (CET) Received: from server2.thinkcrime.de (server2.thinkcrime.de [213.133.110.149]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id l1A1aEDT010316 for ; Sat, 10 Feb 2007 02:36:14 +0100 Received: from hod-sarge-2005-10.lan.m-e-leypold.de (dslb-088-072-200-144.pools.arcor-ip.net [88.72.200.144]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by server2.thinkcrime.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id C00AD488032 for ; Sat, 10 Feb 2007 02:36:17 +0100 (CET) Received: by hod-sarge-2005-10.lan.m-e-leypold.de (Postfix, from userid 1003) id C3930376C1; Sat, 10 Feb 2007 02:41:26 +0100 (CET) To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Multiplication of matrix in C and OCaml References: <45CAF3E2.7020807@univ-paris12.fr> <45CCEDD8.3080907@fmf.uni-lj.si> <0364ab557o.fsf@hod.lan.m-e-leypold.de> <200702092353.09173.jon@ffconsultancy.com> Organization: Leypold, Software-Dienstleistungen und -Beratung From: ls-ocaml-developer-2006@m-e-leypold.de Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2007 02:41:26 +0100 In-Reply-To: <200702092353.09173.jon@ffconsultancy.com> (Jon Harrop's message of "Fri, 9 Feb 2007 23:53:09 +0000") Message-ID: <121wkybxh5.fsf@hod.lan.m-e-leypold.de> User-Agent: Some cool user agent (SCUG) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Miltered: at concorde with ID 45CD218E.004 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail . ensmp . fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; ocaml:01 compiler:01 gcc:01 flags:01 flags:01 compiler:01 markus:01 wrote:01 caml-list:01 writes:01 incorrect:06 correct:08 wrong:09 optimize:10 optimize:10 Jon Harrop writes: > On Friday 09 February 2007 22:36, ls-ocaml-developer-2006@m-e-leypold.de > wrote: >> Still I think the compiler (GCC) might take the license to >> optimize (a * b) *c == a * (b * c) to false with -O3. > > The -O* flags try to be correct but you can supply flags like -ffast-math to Sorry, I wanted to say "optimize (a * b) *c == a * (b * c) to true", i.e. 1. Would the compiler be wrong/incorrect in doing so? I don't think so. Regards -- Markus