https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68112
alalaw01 at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68112
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||i?86-*-*
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68112
--- Comment #4 from alalaw01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Sure, but gcc exploits undefinedness of multiply, so rewriting shift to
multiply is not equivalent in the general case :(.
One way forward might be to make definedness of overflow a bit finer-gr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68112
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
Not exactly sure but at least GCC doesn't take advantage of any undefinedness
in
left-shifts (apart from the shift count being in-range for the type).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68112
--- Comment #2 from alalaw01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
So (a << CONSTANT) is not equivalent to a * (1<
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68112
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
