[Bug target/114732] ge can't be reversed to unlt for bcd compares

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114732 --- Comment #6 from HaoChen Gui --- (In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #3) > 1001, 0101, 0011 I mean of course. > > In some ways CCmode models this better than CCFPmode, but we do not actually > model > the SO bit (bit 3) at all in

[Bug target/114732] ge can't be reversed to unlt for bcd compares

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114732 --- Comment #5 from Segher Boessenkool --- (Or, at-most-one-hot, that is!)

[Bug target/114732] ge can't be reversed to unlt for bcd compares

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114732 --- Comment #4 from Segher Boessenkool --- (In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #3) > -- Bit 0 is all-true, bit 2 is all-false, like in the vcmp* insns. (And bits 1 and 3 are set to zeroes for those insns. So it is all one-hot there

[Bug target/114732] ge can't be reversed to unlt for bcd compares

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114732 --- Comment #3 from Segher Boessenkool --- 1001, 0101, 0011 I mean of course. In some ways CCmode models this better than CCFPmode, but we do not actually model the SO bit (bit 3) at all in CCmode. It is a nice feature of CCmode (that we

[Bug target/114732] ge can't be reversed to unlt for bcd compares

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114732 --- Comment #2 from Segher Boessenkool --- The fourth CR bit for BCD insns does not mean "unordered", it means "invalid or overflow". It behaves exactly as unordered though, except that it can signal overflow as well as one of the lt gt eq

[Bug target/114732] ge can't be reversed to unlt for bcd compares

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114732 --- Comment #1 from HaoChen Gui --- A straightforward test case. It passes when compiling with O0 and aborts when compiling with O2. //test.c #include #define BCD_POS0 12// 0xC #define BCD_NEG 13// 0xD void abort (void);