https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70547
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70547
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.0
--- Comment #8 from Andrew Pinski
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70547
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70547
Gabriel Ravier changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gabravier at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70547
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #4)
> /* (m1 CMP m2) * d -> (m1 CMP m2) ? d : 0 */
> (for cmp (gt lt ge le)
> (simplify
> (mult (convert (cmp @0 @1)) @2)
> (cond (cmp @0 @1) @2 { build_zero_cst (t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70547
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
/* (m1 CMP m2) * d -> (m1 CMP m2) ? d : 0 */
(for cmp (gt lt ge le)
(simplify
(mult (convert (cmp @0 @1)) @2)
(cond (cmp @0 @1) @2 { build_zero_cst (type); })))
Should have caught that ...
NOTE I think
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70547
--- Comment #3 from Marc Glisse ---
In this case, the code was deliberately written this way, presumably to avoid
the branching in &&. Using & would be better (and that's what I am suggesting
we optimize it to), but * doesn't seem nonsensical to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70547
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70547
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
