On Tue, Mar 04, 2025 at 09:26:07AM +, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> gcc/
> PR rtl-optimization/119002
> * simplify-rtx.cc
> (simplify_context::simplify_logical_relational_operation): Handle
> comparisons between CC values. If there is no evidence that the
> CC values
Richard Sandiford writes:
> Jakub Jelinek writes:
>> On Mon, Mar 03, 2025 at 01:46:20PM +, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>>> Jakub Jelinek writes:
>>> > On Mon, Mar 03, 2025 at 01:02:07PM +, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>>> >> ...how about something like this? Completely untested, and I haven't
Jakub Jelinek writes:
> On Mon, Mar 03, 2025 at 01:46:20PM +, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>> Jakub Jelinek writes:
>> > On Mon, Mar 03, 2025 at 01:02:07PM +, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>> >> ...how about something like this? Completely untested, and I haven't
>> >> thought about it much. Jus
On Mon, Mar 03, 2025 at 01:46:20PM +, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> Jakub Jelinek writes:
> > On Mon, Mar 03, 2025 at 01:02:07PM +, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> >> ...how about something like this? Completely untested, and I haven't
> >> thought about it much. Just didn't want to hold up the
Jakub Jelinek writes:
> On Mon, Mar 03, 2025 at 01:02:07PM +, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>> ...how about something like this? Completely untested, and I haven't
>> thought about it much. Just didn't want to hold up the discussion.
>
> Works for me.
>
> Just wonder if there is anything that wil
On Mon, Mar 03, 2025 at 01:02:07PM +, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> ...how about something like this? Completely untested, and I haven't
> thought about it much. Just didn't want to hold up the discussion.
Works for me.
Just wonder if there is anything that will actually verify that XEXP (op0,
Jakub Jelinek writes:
> On Mon, Mar 03, 2025 at 12:20:00PM +, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>> I think we should instead go back to punting on comparisons whose inputs
>> are CC modes, as we did (indirectly, via comparison_code_valid_for_mode)
>> before r15-6777. Sorry, I'd forgotten/hadn't though
On Mon, Mar 03, 2025 at 12:20:00PM +, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> I think we should instead go back to punting on comparisons whose inputs
> are CC modes, as we did (indirectly, via comparison_code_valid_for_mode)
> before r15-6777. Sorry, I'd forgotten/hadn't thought to exclude CC modes
> expl
Jakub Jelinek writes:
> Hi!
>
> The following testcase is miscompiled on powerpc64le-linux starting with
> r15-6777.
> That change has the if (HONOR_NANS (GET_MODE (XEXP (op0, 0 all = 15;
> lines which work fine if the comparisons use MODE_FLOAT or MODE_INT operands
> (or say MODE_VECTOR* etc.
Hi!
The following testcase is miscompiled on powerpc64le-linux starting with
r15-6777.
That change has the if (HONOR_NANS (GET_MODE (XEXP (op0, 0 all = 15;
lines which work fine if the comparisons use MODE_FLOAT or MODE_INT operands
(or say MODE_VECTOR* etc.). But on this testcase on ppc64le
10 matches
Mail list logo
