Mark Mitchell writes:
> What do people think? Do we have the leeway to change this?
If it were just cases where using __builtin_expect is pointless that
would break, like function overloading and sizeof then I don't think
it would be a problem. However, it would change behaviour when C++
convers
Richard Guenther wrote:
>> What do people think? Do we have the leeway to change this? Or should
>> we add __builtin_expect2? Or add an -fno-polymorphic-builtin-expect?
>> Or...?
>
> I think we should simply make __builtin_expect polymorphic, but make sure
> to promote integral arguments with
David Daney wrote:
> The gfortran.dg/optional_dim_2.f90 test has been failing on mipsel-linux
> ever since it was added.
See PR 34387. If you want, you could try the patch posted there.
Tobias
