: Wednesday, January 10, 2024 1:46 AM
To: Richard Biener ; Li, Pan2
Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org; juzhe.zh...@rivai.ai; Wang, Yanzhang
; kito.ch...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] RISC-V: Bugfix for doesn't honor no-signed-zeros option
On 1/8/24 03:45, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 2, 2024 a
On 1/8/24 03:45, Richard Biener wrote:
On Tue, Jan 2, 2024 at 2:37 PM wrote:
From: Pan Li
According to the sematics of no-signed-zeros option, the backend
like RISC-V should treat the minus zero -0.0f as plus zero 0.0f.
Consider below example with option -fno-signed-zeros.
void
test
ct me if any
> misunderstanding.
>
> Pan
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Li, Pan2
> Sent: Tuesday, January 9, 2024 9:22 AM
> To: Richard Biener
> Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org; juzhe.zh...@rivai.ai; Wang, Yanzhang
> ; kito.ch...@gmail.com; jeffreya...@gmail.com
> Sub
ssage-
From: Richard Biener
Sent: Monday, January 8, 2024 6:45 PM
To: Li, Pan2
Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org; juzhe.zh...@rivai.ai; Wang, Yanzhang
; kito.ch...@gmail.com; jeffreya...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] RISC-V: Bugfix for doesn't honor no-signed-zeros option
On Tue, Jan 2
---
From: Richard Biener
Sent: Monday, January 8, 2024 6:45 PM
To: Li, Pan2
Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org; juzhe.zh...@rivai.ai; Wang, Yanzhang
; kito.ch...@gmail.com; jeffreya...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] RISC-V: Bugfix for doesn't honor no-signed-zeros option
On Tue, Jan 2, 2024 at 2:37 PM
On Tue, Jan 2, 2024 at 2:37 PM wrote:
>
> From: Pan Li
>
> According to the sematics of no-signed-zeros option, the backend
> like RISC-V should treat the minus zero -0.0f as plus zero 0.0f.
>
> Consider below example with option -fno-signed-zeros.
>
> void
> test (float *a)
> {
> *a = -0.0;
>
From: Pan Li
According to the sematics of no-signed-zeros option, the backend
like RISC-V should treat the minus zero -0.0f as plus zero 0.0f.
Consider below example with option -fno-signed-zeros.
void
test (float *a)
{
*a = -0.0;
}
We will generate code as below, which doesn't treat the
