Joe Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | On Tue, Jan 16, 2007 at 11:05:20AM -0800, David Daney wrote: | > Roberto Bagnara wrote: | > > | > >Hmmm, it says nothing about the remainder. Can some Google guru | > >suggest how to prove or disprove the claim that what we are | > >talking about is wildly known? | > > | > | > The point really is not how widely/wildly known the issue is. Really | > the thing we consider on gcc@ is: What is the 'best' thing for GCC and | > the GCC developers to do. | > | > I don't claim to speak for others, but until now this issue has not | > seemed all that pressing. And it still doesn't. | | We can talk about this forever, but how about moving to a resolution?
seconded. | First off, is there a PR for this bug? I believe this is target/30484. Ian, do you believe something along the line of # > I mean, could not we generate the following for "%": # > # > rem a b := # > if abs(b) == 1 # > return 0 # > return <machine-instruction> a b # # On x86 processors that have conditional moves, why not do the equivalent # of # # neg_b = -b; # cmov(last result is negative,neg_b,b) # __machine_rem(a,b) # # Then there's no disruption of the pipeline. is workable for the affected targets? -- Gaby
