On Fri, 20 Apr 2012, William J. Schmidt wrote: > On Fri, 2012-04-20 at 11:32 -0700, H.J. Lu wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 6:58 PM, William J. Schmidt > > <wschm...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: > > > This enhances constant folding for division by complex and vector > > > constants. When -freciprocal-math is present, such divisions are > > > converted into multiplies by the constant reciprocal. When an exact > > > reciprocal is available, this is done for vector constants when > > > optimizing. I did not implement logic for exact reciprocals of complex > > > constants because either (a) the complexity doesn't justify the > > > likelihood of occurrence, or (b) I'm lazy. Your choice. ;) > > > > > > Bootstrapped with no new regressions on powerpc64-unknown-linux-gnu. Ok > > > for trunk? > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > gcc: > > > > > > 2012-04-19 Bill Schmidt <wschm...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> > > > > > > PR rtl-optimization/44214 > > > * fold-const.c (exact_inverse): New function. > > > (fold_binary_loc): Fold vector and complex division by constant > > > into > > > multiply by recripocal with flag_reciprocal_math; fold vector > > > division > > > by constant into multiply by reciprocal with exact inverse. > > > > > > gcc/testsuite: > > > > > > > It caused: > > > > FAIL: gcc.dg/torture/builtin-explog-1.c -O0 (test for excess errors) > > FAIL: gcc.dg/torture/builtin-power-1.c -O0 (test for excess errors) > > > > on x86. > > > > Hm, sorry, I don't know how that escaped my testing. This was due to > the suggestion to have the "optimize" test encompass the > -freciprocal-math test. Looks like this changes some expected behavior, > at least for these two tests. > > Two options: Revert the move of the "optimize" test, or change the tests > to require -O1 or above. Richard, what's your preference?
Change the test to require -O1 or above. Richard.