--- Comment #8 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-21 20:17 ---
*** Bug 29538 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #7 from bagnara at cs dot unipr dot it 2005-12-20 07:49 ---
I can confirm both problems (incorrect reordering and performance regression)
are present in GCC version 4.0.2 and version 4.2.0 20051209 (experimental).
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21032
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-15
17:26 ---
This is unrelated to 323. The problem is that GCC does not implement a
rounding modes correctly for
C99 and therefor defines it as aways "normal" rounding mode and implements this
transformation.
--
--- Additional Comments From vincent at vinc17 dot org 2005-06-15 17:08
---
Oops, forget my comment. There is a bug, but 5.1.2.3#13 / 6.3.1.5#2 / 6.3.1.8#2
is not related to it if gcc does reduce the precision (due to the "volatile",
that in fact prevents bug 323 from occurring here, rig
--- Additional Comments From vincent at vinc17 dot org 2005-06-15 16:49
---
I think that this is just bug 323 (which is a real bug, not invalid). Version
3.4 added other regressions related to this bug (e.g. when one has function
calls), and this is not specific to the negate operation.
--- Additional Comments From bagnara at cs dot unipr dot it 2005-04-16
12:27 ---
I can add the following:
1) the bug was not present in GCC 3.3.3 and is present since version 3.4.0, so I
think it qualifies as a regression;
2) the bug is also present in GCC 4.0.0 20050226 (prerelease),
--- Additional Comments From bagnara at cs dot unipr dot it 2005-04-15
07:01 ---
Subject: Re: GCC 3.4.3 wrongly reorders floating-point
operations
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> Note neg just flips a bit so it is correct anyways
> and there is no loss of precession.
Can you
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-14
22:01 ---
Note neg just flips a bit so it is correct anyways and there is no loss of
precession.
This also happens on ppc darwin, I don't know what to make of this. A C person
has to comment to say
something abou
