https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111655
Bruno Haible changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bruno at clisp dot org
--- Comment #16
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111655
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P1 |P2
--- Comment #15 from Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111655
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111655
--- Comment #14 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Fri, 24 Nov 2023, amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111655
>
> --- Comment #13 from Alexander Monakov ---
> > Then there is the MULT_EXPR x
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111655
--- Comment #13 from Alexander Monakov ---
> Then there is the MULT_EXPR x * x case
This is PR 111701.
It would be nice to clarify what "nonnegative" means in the contracts of this
family of functions, because it's ambiguous for NaNs and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111655
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111655
--- Comment #11 from Alexander Monakov ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #10)
> And this conservatively has to apply to all FP divisions where we might infer
> "nonnegative" unless we can also infer !zerop?
Yes, I think the logic in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111655
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.8.5
Target Milestone|---
