On Tue, Sep 20, 2022 at 5:10 PM Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> On Tue, Sep 20, 2022 at 04:58:38PM +0200, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
> > > > > deal with NaNs just fine and is required to correctly capture the
> > > > > sign of
> > > > > 'x'. If frange::set_nonnegative is supposed to be used in such
> > >
On Tue, Sep 20, 2022 at 04:58:38PM +0200, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
> > > > deal with NaNs just fine and is required to correctly capture the sign
> > > > of
> > > > 'x'. If frange::set_nonnegative is supposed to be used in such contexts
> > > > (and I think it's a good idea if that were the case),
On Tue, Sep 20, 2022 at 2:51 PM Michael Matz wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> On Tue, 20 Sep 2022, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
>
> > > FWIW, in IEEE, 'abs' (like 'copy, 'copysign' and 'negate') are not
> > > arithmetic, they are quiet-computational. Hence they don't rise
> > > anything, not even for sNaNs; they
Hello,
On Tue, 20 Sep 2022, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
> > FWIW, in IEEE, 'abs' (like 'copy, 'copysign' and 'negate') are not
> > arithmetic, they are quiet-computational. Hence they don't rise
> > anything, not even for sNaNs; they copy the input bits and appropriately
> > modify the bit pattern
On Mon, Sep 19, 2022 at 3:42 PM Richard Biener
wrote:
>
> On Mon, Sep 19, 2022 at 2:52 PM Aldy Hernandez wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Sep 19, 2022 at 10:14 AM Richard Biener
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, Sep 19, 2022 at 9:59 AM Aldy Hernandez wrote:
> > > >
> > > > ISTM that a specifically
On Mon, Sep 19, 2022 at 4:04 PM Michael Matz wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> On Mon, 19 Sep 2022, Richard Biener via Gcc-patches wrote:
>
> > > but I guess it's good we do the right thing for correctness sake, and
> > > if it ever gets used by someone else.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > That said,
Hello,
On Mon, 19 Sep 2022, Richard Biener via Gcc-patches wrote:
> > but I guess it's good we do the right thing for correctness sake, and
> > if it ever gets used by someone else.
> >
> > >
> > > That said, 'set_nonnegative' could be interpreted to be without
> > > NaNs?
> >
> > Sounds good to
On Mon, Sep 19, 2022 at 2:52 PM Aldy Hernandez wrote:
>
> On Mon, Sep 19, 2022 at 10:14 AM Richard Biener
> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Sep 19, 2022 at 9:59 AM Aldy Hernandez wrote:
> > >
> > > ISTM that a specifically nonnegative range should not contain -NAN,
> > > otherwise signbit_p() would
On Mon, Sep 19, 2022 at 10:14 AM Richard Biener
wrote:
>
> On Mon, Sep 19, 2022 at 9:59 AM Aldy Hernandez wrote:
> >
> > ISTM that a specifically nonnegative range should not contain -NAN,
> > otherwise signbit_p() would return false, because we'd be unsure of the
> > sign.
> >
> > Do y'all
On Mon, Sep 19, 2022 at 9:59 AM Aldy Hernandez wrote:
>
> ISTM that a specifically nonnegative range should not contain -NAN,
> otherwise signbit_p() would return false, because we'd be unsure of the
> sign.
>
> Do y'all agree?
what tree_expr_nonnegative_p actually means isn't 100% clear. For
ISTM that a specifically nonnegative range should not contain -NAN,
otherwise signbit_p() would return false, because we'd be unsure of the
sign.
Do y'all agree?
PR 68097/tree-optimization
gcc/ChangeLog:
* value-range.cc (frange::set_nonnegative): Set +NAN.
11 matches
Mail list logo
