On Thu, 26 Sep 2024, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 6:57 AM Richard Biener wrote:
> >
> >
> > This is an alternate fix (see
> > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-09/msg00234.html for the other
> > one) for the various PRs that show that LIM exposes undefined
> > signed overfl
On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 6:57 AM Richard Biener wrote:
>
>
> This is an alternate fix (see
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-09/msg00234.html for the other
> one) for the various PRs that show that LIM exposes undefined
> signed overflow on paths where it wasn't executed before LIM
> ultimat
On Thu, 17 Oct 2013, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 09:56:31AM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> > off-noise (more than 5s difference) may be 462.libquantum and
> > 459.GemsFDTD. I didn't include unpatched trunk in the comparison
> > (not fixing the bug isn't an option after all).
>
On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 09:56:31AM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> off-noise (more than 5s difference) may be 462.libquantum and
> 459.GemsFDTD. I didn't include unpatched trunk in the comparison
> (not fixing the bug isn't an option after all).
>
> Conceptually I like the rewriting into unsigned
On Tue, 15 Oct 2013, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> This is an alternate fix (see
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-09/msg00234.html for the other
> one) for the various PRs that show that LIM exposes undefined
> signed overflow on paths where it wasn't executed before LIM
> ultimately leading
Hi,
On Tue, 15 Oct 2013 15:57:16, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> This is an alternate fix (see
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-09/msg00234.html for the other
> one) for the various PRs that show that LIM exposes undefined
> signed overflow on paths where it wasn't executed before LIM
> ultimat
