On May 7, 2020 4:34:59 PM GMT+02:00, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>On Thu, May 07, 2020 at 10:12:12AM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
>> I think unconditionally using (abs @0) is simplifying things enough
>> (getting rid of one xor and one plus) to not worry about keeping
>> the (x >> (prec - 1))?
>
>Ok.
>
>
On Thu, May 07, 2020 at 10:12:12AM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> I think unconditionally using (abs @0) is simplifying things enough
> (getting rid of one xor and one plus) to not worry about keeping
> the (x >> (prec - 1))?
Ok.
> Do you really need the TYPE_OVERFLOW_UNDEFINED check?
Probably n
