On Feb 4, 2006, at 7:06 AM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
signs_all[4] = { !(sx > 0), !(sy > 0), !(sz > 0), 0 },
C++ front-end produces:
<>;
<>>;
<<< Unknown tree: expr_stmt signs_all[1] = (int) sy <= 0 >>>;
<<< Unknown tree: expr_stmt signs_all[2] = (int) sz <= 0 >>>;
While the C
On 2/4/06, Andrew Pinski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Dale Johannesen and I came up with a patch to the C++ front-end
> for this except it did not work with some C++ cases.
Ah, so i'm not totally inane.
Is there a PR i can track for this one?
On Feb 3, 2006, at 8:23 PM, tbp wrote:
As i coulnd't understand why g++ insisted on spitting movq $0,
only to rewrite the same place a few cycles behind (with a different
width), i've made a testcase and now 20mn later i'm even more puzzled.
signs_all[4] = { !(sx > 0), !(sy
As i coulnd't understand why g++ insisted on spitting movq $0,
only to rewrite the same place a few cycles behind (with a different
width), i've made a testcase and now 20mn later i'm even more puzzled.
#include
#include
struct dir_t { __m128 x,y,z; };
int creative_codegen(const struct dir_t
