On 07/05/14 11:32, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 12:30 PM, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
>> On 05/05/14 09:04, Richard Biener wrote:
>>> On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 12:39 PM, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
On 02/05/14 11:28, James Greenhalgh wrote:
> On Fri, May 02, 2014 at 10:29:06AM +01
On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 12:30 PM, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
> On 05/05/14 09:04, Richard Biener wrote:
>> On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 12:39 PM, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
>>> On 02/05/14 11:28, James Greenhalgh wrote:
On Fri, May 02, 2014 at 10:29:06AM +0100, pins...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>>
On 05/05/14 09:04, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 12:39 PM, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
>> On 02/05/14 11:28, James Greenhalgh wrote:
>>> On Fri, May 02, 2014 at 10:29:06AM +0100, pins...@gmail.com wrote:
> On May 2, 2014, at 2:21 AM, James Greenhalgh
> wrote:
>
On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 12:39 PM, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
> On 02/05/14 11:28, James Greenhalgh wrote:
>> On Fri, May 02, 2014 at 10:29:06AM +0100, pins...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>
On May 2, 2014, at 2:21 AM, James Greenhalgh
wrote:
> On Fri, May 02, 2014 at 10:00:15AM +0100, A
On 02/05/14 11:28, James Greenhalgh wrote:
> On Fri, May 02, 2014 at 10:29:06AM +0100, pins...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On May 2, 2014, at 2:21 AM, James Greenhalgh
>>> wrote:
>>>
On Fri, May 02, 2014 at 10:00:15AM +0100, Andrew Pinski wrote:
On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 1:48 AM, James Gree
On Fri, May 02, 2014 at 10:29:06AM +0100, pins...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
> > On May 2, 2014, at 2:21 AM, James Greenhalgh
> > wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, May 02, 2014 at 10:00:15AM +0100, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> >> On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 1:48 AM, James Greenhalgh
> >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> On May 2, 2014, at 2:21 AM, James Greenhalgh wrote:
>
>> On Fri, May 02, 2014 at 10:00:15AM +0100, Andrew Pinski wrote:
>> On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 1:48 AM, James Greenhalgh
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Unlike the mid-end's concept of an ABS_EXPR, which treats overflow as
>>> undefined/impo
On Fri, May 02, 2014 at 10:00:15AM +0100, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 1:48 AM, James Greenhalgh
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > Unlike the mid-end's concept of an ABS_EXPR, which treats overflow as
> > undefined/impossible, the neon intrinsics vabs intrinsics should behave as
> > th
On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 1:48 AM, James Greenhalgh
wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Unlike the mid-end's concept of an ABS_EXPR, which treats overflow as
> undefined/impossible, the neon intrinsics vabs intrinsics should behave as
> the hardware. That is to say, the pseudo-code sequence:
Only for signed integer
Hi,
Unlike the mid-end's concept of an ABS_EXPR, which treats overflow as
undefined/impossible, the neon intrinsics vabs intrinsics should behave as
the hardware. That is to say, the pseudo-code sequence:
a = vabs_s8 (vdup_n_s8 (-128));
assert (a >= 0);
does not hold. As in hardware
abs
10 matches
Mail list logo