I have reverted the patch while I sort this out.
Thanks for the report and especially for the distilled test. It's very useful.
Aldy
On Wed, Nov 9, 2022 at 2:58 PM Xi Ruoyao wrote:
>
> On Wed, 2022-11-09 at 21:49 +0800, Xi Ruoyao wrote:
> > Hi Aldy,
> >
> > This commit breaks the attached test
On Wed, 2022-11-09 at 21:49 +0800, Xi Ruoyao wrote:
> Hi Aldy,
>
> This commit breaks the attached test case at -O2 on x86_64-linux-gnu and
^^^
Ah, not this one. I meant r13-3842 "Implement op[12]_range operators
for PLUS_EXPR and MINUS_EXPR."
> loongarch64-linux-gnu :(.
>
> The code
Hi Aldy,
This commit breaks the attached test case at -O2 on x86_64-linux-gnu and
loongarch64-linux-gnu :(.
The code is simplified from Glibc: the breakage causes two Glibc test
failures on loongarch64-linux-gnu.
Reverting the commit can fix the breakage.
On Wed, 2022-11-09 at 08:07 +0100, Aldy
Now that the generic parts of the binary operators have been
abstracted, implementing MINUS_EXPR is a cinch.
The op[12]_range entries will be submitted as a follow-up.
gcc/ChangeLog:
* range-op-float.cc (class foperator_minus): New.
(floating_op_table::floating_op_table): Add MIN
