https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24021
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |13.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24021
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24021
--- Comment #27 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Aldy Hernandez :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:9d96a286992a0fd9ecdd6a58cd9a413c8c49f477
commit r13-3812-g9d96a286992a0fd9ecdd6a58cd9a413c8c49f477
Author: Aldy Hernandez
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24021
--- Comment #26 from Aldy Hernandez ---
(In reply to Andrew Macleod from comment #19)
> We can use the original testcase as the litmus test for basic support if we
> compile it with
>
> -O2 -fno-tree-fre -fno-tree-dominator-opts
>
> The
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24021
--- Comment #25 from Aldy Hernandez ---
Adding some notes here as I work through this PR...
Even with floating aware VRP, we won't be able to do much because SCEV (which
ranger and VRP use) does not work with non-integers.
At EVRP time we see:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24021
--- Comment #24 from Jakub Jelinek ---
It would, but it would also give up quite often.
For VRP we can do better, because we don't have just the options exactly
correct answer or give up, we can have ranges.
So, say for flag_rounding_math, we
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24021
--- Comment #23 from Aldy Hernandez ---
(In reply to Aldy Hernandez from comment #22)
> > This doesn't take flag_rounding_math or not always exactly precise floating
> > point computations into account.
> > It is also missing real_convert after
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24021
--- Comment #22 from Aldy Hernandez ---
> This doesn't take flag_rounding_math or not always exactly precise floating
> point computations into account.
> It is also missing real_convert after real_arithmetics that performs at least
> some of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24021
--- Comment #21 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Aldy Hernandez from comment #20)
> (In reply to Andrew Macleod from comment #19)
> > We can use the original testcase as the litmus test for basic support if we
> > compile it with
> >
> > -O2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24021
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24021
--- Comment #19 from Andrew Macleod ---
We can use the original testcase as the litmus test for basic support if we
compile it with
-O2 -fno-tree-fre -fno-tree-dominator-opts
The unroller will unroll the loop and the VRP2 pass will be
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24021
--- Comment #18 from Vincent Lefèvre ---
I'm wondering whether it is possible to check on actual code what is needed.
For instance, assume that you have a program that produces always the same
results, e.g. by running it over a fixed dataset.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24021
--- Comment #17 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Thu, 10 Feb 2022, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24021
>
> --- Comment #16 from Jakub Jelinek ---
> But just tracking those
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24021
--- Comment #16 from Jakub Jelinek ---
But just tracking those fpclassify/signbit properties wouldn't be enough,
because in many cases e.g. whether something can be infinite or not will depend
on more precise value ranges.
If we track just a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24021
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|richard.guenther at gmail dot com |rguenth at gcc dot
gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24021
--- Comment #14 from Vincent Lefèvre ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #11)
> And also take into account different rounding modes if
> user wants that to be honored.
And that would eliminate the need to consider the possibility of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24021
--- Comment #13 from Andrew Macleod ---
> etc. which would be great if it could use frange. Though, I think we also
> run here into the problem that match.pd right now avoids the ranger because
> it could reliably only allow walks from uses to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24021
--- Comment #12 from Andrew Macleod ---
(In reply to Aldy Hernandez from comment #8)
> (In reply to Jeffrey A. Law from comment #7)
> > Very cool. ANd no, I'm not enough of an expert on the FP side to shepherd
> > that though. I would expect
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24021
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24021
--- Comment #10 from Vincent Lefèvre ---
(In reply to Vincent Lefèvre from comment #9)
> Subnormals might also need to be considered as special cases: "Whether and
> in what cases subnormal numbers are treated as zeros is implementation
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24021
--- Comment #9 from Vincent Lefèvre ---
(In reply to Aldy Hernandez from comment #6)
> As I've mentioned, I'm hoping some floating expert can take this across to
> goal line, as my head will start spinning as soon as we start talking about
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24021
--- Comment #8 from Aldy Hernandez ---
(In reply to Jeffrey A. Law from comment #7)
> Very cool. ANd no, I'm not enough of an expert on the FP side to shepherd
> that though. I would expect it to be exceptionally tricky on the solver
> side.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24021
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24021
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jeffreyalaw at gmail dot com,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24021
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24021
Andrew Macleod changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aldyh at redhat dot com,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24021
--- Comment #3 from Vincent Lefèvre ---
But note that the optimization should be modified or disabled in contexts where
floating-point exceptions need to be honored, as the i+=0.1f will sometimes
trigger the inexact exception.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24021
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
---
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-23 23:42 ---
Confirmed.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
29 matches
Mail list logo
