[Bug fortran/45318] Do more parenthesis simplification with -fno-protect-parens
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45318 Thomas Koenig tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #5 from Thomas Koenig tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org --- Any specific examples?
[Bug fortran/45318] Do more parenthesis simplification with -fno-protect-parens
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45318 Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |RESOLVED Resolution|--- |WORKSFORME --- Comment #6 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to Thomas Koenig from comment #5) Any specific examples? I looked now through the code (for INTRINSIC_PARENTHESES) and glanced at some of the related PRs. I failed to find a case where one could do something in the FE - and the ME already handles it. (An example would be (a+5)-7 - however, the ME essentially ignores all code involving nonconstants; the only exception is dependency tracing and there such a case is also unlikely.) In summary, while there could be in principle a case, which should be handled, in practice, there does not seem to be one. Thus: Close as WORKSFORME.
[Bug fortran/45318] Do more parenthesis simplification with -fno-protect-parens
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45318 --- Comment #4 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr --- Given Richard's comments and no testcase, I'm in doubt if this PR is meaningful?! Any new opinion about this PR? or should we close it as WONTFIX. NOTE: I'ld like very much that the -no-protect-parens be removed from -Ofast!-(
[Bug fortran/45318] Do more parenthesis simplification with -fno-protect-parens
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45318 Daniel Franke dfranke at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING Last reconfirmed||2010.12.28 23:37:54 CC||dfranke at gcc dot gnu.org Ever Confirmed|0 |1 --- Comment #3 from Daniel Franke dfranke at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-12-28 23:37:54 UTC --- Given Richard's comments and no testcase, I'm in doubt if this PR is meaningful?!
[Bug fortran/45318] Do more parenthesis simplification with -fno-protect-parens
--- Comment #1 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-18 14:23 --- (In reply to comment #0) In some cases, one might need to check for the unsave_math_optimization flag before changing, e.g., 2+(a-2) to a - or rather (a). The whole point of PAREN_EXPR in the middle-end is to avoid transforming 2 + (a - 2) even _with_ -funsafe-math-optimizations / -ffast-math! -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45318
[Bug fortran/45318] Do more parenthesis simplification with -fno-protect-parens
--- Comment #2 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-18 17:44 --- (In reply to comment #1) (In reply to comment #0) In some cases, one might need to check for the unsave_math_optimization flag before changing, e.g., 2+(a-2) to a - or rather (a). The whole point of PAREN_EXPR in the middle-end is to avoid transforming 2 + (a - 2) even _with_ -funsafe-math-optimizations / -ffast-math! Well, I am talking about FE optimizations with -fno-protect-parens (note the no-). The PAREN_EXPR protection *is* and *should* one done with -fprotect-parens (which is the default setting). In terms of the middle end, -fno-protect-parens and -fprotect-parens are both properly handled. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45318
