On Thu, 7 Nov 2013, Kenneth Zadeck wrote:
> On 11/07/2013 01:07 PM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> > Kenneth Zadeck writes:
> > > I very strongly disagree with this. The standard needs to be high than
> > > "does it pass the test suite."
> > >
> > > What we are introducing is a case where the progr
Kenneth Zadeck writes:
> I very strongly disagree with this. The standard needs to be high than
> "does it pass the test suite."
>
> What we are introducing is a case where the program will behave one way
> with optimization and another way without it. While, this is always
> true for timing dep
On Thu, 7 Nov 2013, Kenneth Zadeck wrote:
> I very strongly disagree with this. The standard needs to be high than "does
> it pass the test suite."
>
> What we are introducing is a case where the program will behave one way
> with optimization and another way without it. While, this is always
I very strongly disagree with this. The standard needs to be high than "does
it pass the test suite."
What we are introducing is a case where the program will behave one way with
optimization and another way without it. While, this is always true for timing
dependent code, it is pretty rare f
Kenneth Zadeck writes:
> So what is the big plan here? if you remove it here and then do not
> do it in wide int, then it is not going to be truncated.
Yeah, that is the big plan for trees. Mainline doesn't truncate at the
tree level after:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-11/msg
So what is the big plan here? if you remove it here and then do not
do it in wide int, then it is not going to be truncated.
kenny
On 11/06/2013 05:10 PM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
Following the removal of SHIFT_COUNT_TRUNCATED from double-int, this patch
reverts the changed I'd made to mi
Following the removal of SHIFT_COUNT_TRUNCATED from double-int, this patch
reverts the changed I'd made to mimic the old behaviour on wide-int.
Tested on powerpc64-linux-gnu and by assembly comparison on a range of targets.
OK to install?
Thanks,
Richard
Index: gcc/fold-const.c
