https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86122
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86122
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Jun 14 19:11:21 2018
New Revision: 261607
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=261607&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/86122
* match.pd ((A +- CST1) +- CST2): Punt
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86122
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Jun 14 19:07:45 2018
New Revision: 261606
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=261606&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/86122
* match.pd ((A +- CST1) +- CST2): Punt
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86122
--- Comment #5 from Marc Glisse ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #2)
> if we want unsigned_type_for to support complex integer types or not.
I think we do (seems super easy). Testing utype can't hurt indeed.
(In reply to Jakub Jeline
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86122
--- Comment #4 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Thu, 14 Jun 2018, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86122
>
> --- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
> Note, other uses of unsigned_type_for in mat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86122
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Note, other uses of unsigned_type_for in match.pd seems to be guarded with
INTEGRAL_TYPE_P check or are on expressions that can't appear with complex
operands.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86122
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86122
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Status|UNCONFIRMED
