On 2007-01-16 21:27:42 +0000, Andrew Haley wrote: > Ian Lance Taylor writes: > > I suspect that the best fix, in the sense of generating the best > > code, would be to do this at the tree level. That will give loop > > and VRP optimizations the best chance to eliminate the test for -1. > > Doing it during gimplification would be easy, if perhaps rather > > ugly. If there are indeed several processors with this oddity, > > then it would even make a certain degree of sense as a > > target-independent option. > > x86, x86-64, S/390, as far as I'm aware.
and PowerPC G4 and G5, where I don't get a crash, but an incorrect result (as said on PR#30484). -- Vincent Lefèvre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - Web: <http://www.vinc17.org/> 100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: <http://www.vinc17.org/blog/> Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / Arenaire project (LIP, ENS-Lyon)
