Hi,
On Fri, 12 Jul 2013, Marc Glisse wrote:
> If you want to handle integers, shouldn't you test TYPE_OVERFLOW_UNDEFINED
> (for LONG_MIN)?
Right, ...
> FLOAT_TYPE_P does seem safer indeed.
... hence this is it now.
>
> I'd replace TREE_TYPE (expr) with itype on the next line, it is confusing
On Fri, 12 Jul 2013, Michael Matz wrote:
GCC happily transforms (float)-z into -(float)z, even when z is of
unsigned type (when it's larger than float). That's wrong (the result
should always be positive, because -z is). It seems to me that this bug
exists in all reasonably recent GCC versions
On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 03:37:44PM +0200, Michael Matz wrote:
> So, this is a dup of PR55771, I'm now proposing to add a test for
> FLOAT_TYPE_P, not TYPE_UNSIGNED. Restarted the regstrap.
Ok if it passes bootstrap/regtest. I'd say we should apply it to
4.8 too, while it might not be a regressi
Hi,
On Fri, 12 Jul 2013, Michael Matz wrote:
> Hi,
>
> GCC happily transforms (float)-z into -(float)z, even when z is of
> unsigned type (when it's larger than float). That's wrong (the result
> should always be positive, because -z is). It seems to me that this bug
> exists in all reasona
Hi,
GCC happily transforms (float)-z into -(float)z, even when z is of
unsigned type (when it's larger than float). That's wrong (the result
should always be positive, because -z is). It seems to me that this bug
exists in all reasonably recent GCC versions. The checking in
convert_to_real
