https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94083
--- Comment #7 from Harald van Dijk ---
(In reply to Joseph S. Myers from comment #6)
> Contrary to what was claimed in bug 66462, I don't think there ever was a
> fixed patch. Note that in bug 66462 comment 19, "June" is June 2017 but
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94083
--- Comment #6 from Joseph S. Myers ---
Contrary to what was claimed in bug 66462, I don't think there ever was a fixed
patch. Note that in bug 66462 comment 19, "June" is June 2017 but "November" is
November 2016 - the "November" one is the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94083
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Ah, ok. So then expansion should just concentrate on the fabs (x) <= nextafter
(inf, 0) case for soft-float case and defer the rest to PR66462 which would
handle that much earlier.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94083
Harald van Dijk changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||harald at gigawatt dot nl
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94083
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94083
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-02-27
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94083
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||g.peterh...@t-online.de
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94083
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94083
The original bug report was apparently lost in the sourceware/gcc migration
back in the spring and I didn't notice until now.
This testcase
int foo(void) {
volatile float f, g;
intn;
f = __builtin_huge_valf();
g =
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94083
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
10 matches
Mail list logo
