Hi,
> If you have access to x86_64-linux, you can easily test it yourself with:
> make -C gcc check-gcc RUNTESTFLAGS='--target_board=unix\{-m64,-m32/-
> march=i386\} dg.exp=pr61441.c'
>
> Your patch does help.
Thanks, I tested the changes and it worked fine.
> issignalling is a GNU extension
On Thu, Jan 07, 2016 at 06:48:25AM +, Saraswati, Sujoy (OSTL) wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 08:38:55AM +, Saraswati, Sujoy (OSTL) wrote:
> > > PR tree-optimization/61441
> > > * gcc.dg/pr61441.c: New testcase.
> >
> > Note the testcase fails on
Hi,
> On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 08:38:55AM +, Saraswati, Sujoy (OSTL) wrote:
> > PR tree-optimization/61441
> > * gcc.dg/pr61441.c: New testcase.
>
> Note the testcase fails on i686-linux, and even -fexcess-precision=standard
> doesn't help (-ffloat-store works, but
On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 08:38:55AM +, Saraswati, Sujoy (OSTL) wrote:
> PR tree-optimization/61441
> * gcc.dg/pr61441.c: New testcase.
Note the testcase fails on i686-linux, and even -fexcess-precision=standard
doesn't help (-ffloat-store works, but that is a big hammer
On 11/26/2015 01:38 AM, Saraswati, Sujoy (OSTL) wrote:
Hi,
This patch avoids various transformations with signaling NaN operands when
flag_signaling_nans is on, to avoid folding which would lose exceptions. A test
case for this change is also added as part of this patch.
Regards,
Sujoy
On Wed, 2 Dec 2015, Jeff Law wrote:
> Why let NEGATE_EXPR and ABS_EXPR pass through here? I realize that these can
> often be implemented with bit-twiddling, so they're usually considered
> special. BUt in this case aren't we just dealing with constants and wouldn't
> we want to still express
On 12/02/2015 12:08 PM, Joseph Myers wrote:
On Wed, 2 Dec 2015, Jeff Law wrote:
Why let NEGATE_EXPR and ABS_EXPR pass through here? I realize that these can
often be implemented with bit-twiddling, so they're usually considered
special. BUt in this case aren't we just dealing with constants
