On Thu, 11 Oct 2018 at 23:07, Jeff Law <l...@redhat.com> wrote: > > On 10/9/18 5:29 PM, Giuliano Augusto Faulin Belinassi wrote: > > Fixed all issues pointed in the previous iteration. > > There is now a significant change regarding how the sin(atan(x)) > > constant is calculated, as now it checks for which values such that > > computing 1 + x*x won't overflow. There are two reasons for this > > change: (1) Avoid an intermediate infinity value when optimizing > > cos(atan(x)), and (2) avoid the requirement of separate constants for > > sin(atan(x)) and cos(atan(x)), thus making easier to maintain the > > code. > > > > gcc/ChangeLog > > > > 2018-10-09 Giuliano Belinassi <giuliano.belina...@usp.br> > > > > PR tree-optimization/86829 > > * match.pd: Added sin(atan(x)) and cos(atan(x)) simplification rules. > > * real.c (build_sinatan_real): New function to build a constant equal > > to the > > largest value c such that 1 + c*c will not overflow. > > * real.h (build_sinatan_real): Allows this function to be called > > externally. > > > > gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/ChangeLog > > > > 2018-10-09 Giuliano Belinassi <giuliano.belina...@usp.br> > > > > PR tree-optimization/86829 > > * gcc.dg/sinatan-1.c: New test. > > * gcc.dg/sinatan-2.c: New test. > > * gcc.dg/sinatan-3.c: New test. > > > > There are no tests broken in trunk that seems related to this PR. > THanks. I've installed this onto the trunk. It's right at the > borderline of what would require a copyright assignment. So if you're > going to do further work on GCC you should go ahead and start the > copyright assignment process. > > Jeff
Hi! The new sinatan-1.c test fails to link against newlib on aarch64-elf: /tmp/ccmp5fP4.o: In function `sinatanl': sinatan-1.c:(.text+0x68): undefined reference to `atanl' sinatan-1.c:(.text+0x70): undefined reference to `sinl' /tmp/ccmp5fP4.o: In function `cosatanl': sinatan-1.c:(.text+0x80): undefined reference to `atanl' sinatan-1.c:(.text+0x88): undefined reference to `cosl' collect2: error: ld returned 1 exit status I'm not familiar enough with newlib to know if it's a newlib bug, or if we should skip the test? On arm-eabi, the same test fails at runtime, but I haven't yet taken the time to reproduce it manually. Christophe
