[Bug tree-optimization/61747] min,max pattern not always properly optimized (for sse4 targets)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61747 --- Comment #11 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Fri, 21 Jul 2023, pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61747 > > --- Comment #10 from Andrew Pinski --- > (In reply to CVS Commits from comment

[Bug tree-optimization/61747] min,max pattern not always properly optimized (for sse4 targets)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61747 --- Comment #10 from Andrew Pinski --- (In reply to CVS Commits from comment #8) > * g++.target/i386/pr61747.C: New testcase. The testcase fails now, I don't know what caused it to fail though: FAIL: g++.target/i386/pr61747.C

[Bug tree-optimization/61747] min,max pattern not always properly optimized (for sse4 targets)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61747 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Target Milestone|---

[Bug tree-optimization/61747] min,max pattern not always properly optimized (for sse4 targets)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61747 --- Comment #8 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ceae1400cf24f329393e96dd9720b0391afe858d commit r14-2667-gceae1400cf24f329393e96dd9720b0391afe858d Author: Richard Biener Date:

[Bug tree-optimization/61747] min,max pattern not always properly optimized (for sse4 targets)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61747 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug tree-optimization/61747] min,max pattern not always properly optimized (for sse4 targets)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61747 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 Severity|normal

[Bug tree-optimization/61747] min,max pattern not always properly optimized (for sse4 targets)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61747 --- Comment #1 from Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org --- I think you need -fno-signed-zeros for the transformation to be valid.

[Bug tree-optimization/61747] min,max pattern not always properly optimized (for sse4 targets)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61747 --- Comment #2 from vincenzo Innocente vincenzo.innocente at cern dot ch --- I think you need -fno-signed-zeros for the transformation to be valid. possible. but then is the O2 code that is wrong? in any case adding -fno-signed-zeros makes no

[Bug tree-optimization/61747] min,max pattern not always properly optimized (for sse4 targets)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61747 --- Comment #3 from Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to vincenzo Innocente from comment #2) I think you need -fno-signed-zeros for the transformation to be valid. possible. but then is the O2 code that is wrong? in any

[Bug tree-optimization/61747] min,max pattern not always properly optimized (for sse4 targets)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61747 --- Comment #4 from vincenzo Innocente vincenzo.innocente at cern dot ch --- confirm that -ffinite-math-only -fno-signed-zeros is equivalent to Ofast in this case so we conclude that the code generated at O2 is wrong and -ffinite-math-only

[Bug tree-optimization/61747] min,max pattern not always properly optimized (for sse4 targets)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61747 --- Comment #5 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org --- ;; ??? For !flag_finite_math_only, the representation with SMIN/SMAX ;; isn't really correct, as those rtl operators aren't defined when ;; applied to NaNs. Hopefully the