https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61119
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |6.0
Status|NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61119
--- Comment #6 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Fri, 9 May 2014, glisse at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61119
>
> --- Comment #5 from Marc Glisse ---
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #4)
> >
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61119
--- Comment #5 from Marc Glisse ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #4)
> Tricky case, but fold also handles REALPART / IMAGPART of +, - and conjugate
> and of a cexpi call. Of course that may not matter in the end, as
> "easily decompos
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61119
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
Tricky case, but fold also handles REALPART / IMAGPART of +, - and conjugate
and of a cexpi call. Of course that may not matter in the end, as
"easily decompose" probably doesn't apply to those simplificatio
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61119
--- Comment #3 from Marc Glisse ---
But arg0 = builtin_save_expr (arg0); would prevent from folding REALPART_EXPR.
Looking at the fold_unary_loc transforms on REALPART_EXPR, I think it is fine
to restrict the special fast-math treatment in fold_bu
