[Bug target/54829] bad optimization: sub followed by cmp w/ zero (x86 & ARM)

2016-08-11 Thread daniel.santos at pobox dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54829 Daniel Santos changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug target/54829] bad optimization: sub followed by cmp w/ zero (x86 ARM)

2015-02-14 Thread daniel.santos at pobox dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54829 --- Comment #9 from Daniel Santos daniel.santos at pobox dot com --- I appologize for my late response. (In reply to Richard Earnshaw from comment #8) Unfortunately, computers don't to infinite precision arithmetic by default. That would

[Bug target/54829] bad optimization: sub followed by cmp w/ zero (x86 ARM)

2013-08-05 Thread rearnsha at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54829 --- Comment #8 from Richard Earnshaw rearnsha at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to Daniel Santos from comment #7) First off, I apologize for my late response here. (In reply to comment #5) I'm going to respond a little backwards.. In fact,

[Bug target/54829] bad optimization: sub followed by cmp w/ zero (x86 ARM)

2012-11-15 Thread daniel.santos at pobox dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54829 --- Comment #7 from Daniel Santos daniel.santos at pobox dot com 2012-11-15 21:56:02 UTC --- First off, I apologize for my late response here. (In reply to comment #5) I'm going to respond a little backwards.. In fact, on ARM there

[Bug target/54829] bad optimization: sub followed by cmp w/ zero (x86 ARM)

2012-10-13 Thread rearnsha at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54829 --- Comment #5 from Richard Earnshaw rearnsha at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-10-13 16:04:55 UTC --- The result of the comparison is used in more than one instruction, so combine cannot safely rework the branch instructions that follow to ensure

[Bug target/54829] bad optimization: sub followed by cmp w/ zero (x86 ARM)

2012-10-13 Thread rearnsha at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54829 --- Comment #6 from Richard Earnshaw rearnsha at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-10-13 16:18:03 UTC --- Note also that flag setting behaviour of the PPC instruction essentially is a comparison of the result against zero. On ARM the flags are set as

[Bug target/54829] bad optimization: sub followed by cmp w/ zero (x86 ARM)

2012-10-06 Thread daniel.santos at pobox dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54829 Daniel Santos daniel.santos at pobox dot com changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|bad optimization: sub |bad

[Bug target/54829] bad optimization: sub followed by cmp w/ zero (x86 ARM)

2012-10-06 Thread daniel.santos at pobox dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54829 --- Comment #4 from Daniel Santos daniel.santos at pobox dot com 2012-10-06 15:57:15 UTC --- Please help me out here if I am missing something.

[Bug target/54829] bad optimization: sub followed by cmp w/ zero (x86 ARM)

2012-10-05 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54829 Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords|