Hi Janne,
On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 11:47 PM, Janne Blomqvist
wrote:
For floating point types, the question is what MAX(a, NaN) or MIN(a,
NaN) should return (where "a" is a normal number). There are valid
usecases for returning either one, but the Fortran standard doesn't
specify which one sh
Hi!
This fixes a wrong code issue in expand_expr_real_1 which happens because
a negative bitpos is actually able to reach extract_bit_field which
does all computations with poly_uint64, thus the offset 0x1ff0.
To avoid that I propose to use Jakub's r20 patch from the expand_assig
On Sat, Aug 18, 2018 at 12:11 PM, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
> The problem in this case is that insn_cost says:
>
> (set (reg:QI X) (const_int 0))
>
> has a cost of 4 but:
>
> (set (reg:QI X) (const_int -1))
>
> has a cost of 2. So the costs make -1 seem like the cheaper immediate.
>
> This in
PING
On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 11:47 PM, Janne Blomqvist wrote:
> For floating point types, the question is what MAX(a, NaN) or MIN(a,
> NaN) should return (where "a" is a normal number). There are valid
> usecases for returning either one, but the Fortran standard doesn't
> specify which one sho
Hi,
I rebased my range computation patch to current trunk,
and updated it according to what was discussed here.
That means get_range_strlen has already a parameter
that is used to differentiate between ranges for warnings
and ranges for code-gen.
That is called "strict", in the 4-parameter over
Hi Christophe,
Hi,
This is done by
+#if defined(__GTHREAD_HAS_COND) && defined(__GTHREADS_CXX0X) &&
!defined(__ARMEB__)
+#define ASYNC_IO 1
+#else
+#define ASYNC_IO 0
+#endif
I tried this version of the patch, and I'm still seeing the regression
on array_constructor_8.f90.
Urgh...
Coul
