https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54829
Daniel Santos changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54829
--- Comment #9 from Daniel Santos ---
I appologize for my late response.
(In reply to Richard Earnshaw from comment #8)
> Unfortunately, computers don't to infinite precision arithmetic by default.
> That would perform a different comparison in
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54829
--- Comment #8 from Richard Earnshaw ---
(In reply to Daniel Santos from comment #7)
> First off, I apologize for my late response here.
>
> (In reply to comment #5)
> I'm going to respond a little backwards..
>
> > In fact, on ARM there is no b
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54829
--- Comment #7 from Daniel Santos 2012-11-15
21:56:02 UTC ---
First off, I apologize for my late response here.
(In reply to comment #5)
I'm going to respond a little backwards..
> In fact, on ARM there is no branch instruction that c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54829
--- Comment #6 from Richard Earnshaw 2012-10-13
16:18:03 UTC ---
Note also that flag setting behaviour of the PPC instruction essentially is a
comparison of the result against zero. On ARM the flags are set as if the two
input operands we
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54829
--- Comment #5 from Richard Earnshaw 2012-10-13
16:04:55 UTC ---
The result of the comparison is used in more than one instruction, so combine
cannot safely rework the branch instructions that follow to ensure that the
result of the subtra
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54829
--- Comment #4 from Daniel Santos 2012-10-06
15:57:15 UTC ---
Please help me out here if I am missing something.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54829
Daniel Santos changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|bad optimization: sub |bad optimization: sub
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54829
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
