Hi!
> As far as I understand that flag should set the behaviour of the fadd
> function, not the __builtin_fadd one. So I don't know.
According to ISO/IEC TS 18661, I am supposed to implement the fadd
variants for folding and expand them inline, that take double and long
double as arguments and r
Snapshot gcc-9-20190810 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/9-20190810/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 9 SVN branch
with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches/gcc-9
Hi!
On Sat, Aug 10, 2019 at 12:12:46PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 10, 2019 at 08:53:45AM +0200, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote:
> > Has there been a change of policy so it's a valid option to use
> > gcc/ChangeLog for testsuite changes? I was about to move a
> > semi-randomly spotted mis
Hi!
On Sat, Aug 10, 2019 at 04:00:53PM +0530, Tejas Joshi wrote:
> I have been trying to write a basic pattern taking all the suggestions
> you both have mentioned. The same patch is attached here, but I cannot
> see call to :
>
> float
> foo (double x, double y)
> {
> return __builtin_fadd (
On Sat, Aug 10, 2019 at 08:10:27AM +0200, John Darrington wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 09, 2019 at 09:16:44AM -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
>
> Is your code in some branch in our git?
>
> No. But it could be pushed there if people think it would be
> appropriate to do so, and if I'm given the
Hi!
On Sat, Aug 10, 2019 at 08:05:53AM +0200, John Darrington wrote:
>Choosing alt 5 in insn 14: (0) m (1) m {*movsi}
>14: [r40:PSI+0x20]=[r41:PSI]
> Inserting insn reload before:
>48: r40:PSI=r34:PSI
>49: r41:PSI=[y:PSI+0x2f]
insn 14 is a mem-to-mem move (another featur
Hello.
I have been trying to write a basic pattern taking all the suggestions
you both have mentioned. The same patch is attached here, but I cannot
see call to :
float
foo (double x, double y)
{
return __builtin_fadd (x, y);
}
being expanded to any instruction, at least a simple one, using
-f
On Sat, Aug 10, 2019 at 08:53:45AM +0200, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote:
> Has there been a change of policy so it's a valid option to use
> gcc/ChangeLog for testsuite changes? I was about to move a
> semi-randomly spotted misplaced entry, and when checking if
> there were others, I noticed that there
