On Feb 3, 2006, at 8:23 PM, tbp wrote:
As i coulnd't understand why g++ insisted on spitting movq $0, stack
only to rewrite the same place a few cycles behind (with a different
width), i've made a testcase and now 20mn later i'm even more puzzled.
signs_all[4] = { !(sx 0),
On 2/4/06, Andrew Pinski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dale Johannesen and I came up with a patch to the C++ front-end
for this except it did not work with some C++ cases.
Ah, so i'm not totally inane.
Is there a PR i can track for this one?
On Feb 4, 2006, at 7:06 AM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
signs_all[4] = { !(sx 0), !(sy 0), !(sz 0), 0 },
C++ front-end produces:
cleanup_point const int signs_all[4] = {0};;
cleanup_point signs_all[0] = (int) sx = 0 ;
Unknown tree: expr_stmt signs_all[1] = (int) sy = 0 ;
As i coulnd't understand why g++ insisted on spitting movq $0, stack
only to rewrite the same place a few cycles behind (with a different
width), i've made a testcase and now 20mn later i'm even more puzzled.
#include xmmintrin.h
#include stdio.h
struct dir_t { __m128 x,y,z; };
int
