On 8/15/20 5:10 AM, Roger Sayle wrote:
> The motivation for this patch is PR middle-end/85811, a wrong-code
> regression entitled "Invalid optimization with fmax, fabs and nan".
> The optimization involves assuming max(x,y) is non-negative if (say)
> y is non-negative, i.e. max(x,2.0).
On Mon, 17 Aug 2020, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> Ah, so "When both arguments are NaNs, the return value should be a qNaN"
> means the QNaN corresponding to eother x or y. I see, thanks!
Yes. (The precise choice of NaN result given a NaN input is the subject
of various "should"s, in 6.2.3 NaN
On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 10:31:08PM +, Joseph Myers wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Aug 2020, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > On Sat, Aug 15, 2020 at 12:10:42PM +0100, Roger Sayle wrote:
> > > I'll quote Joseph Myers (many thanks) who describes things clearly as:
> > > > (a) When both arguments are NaNs, the
On Sat, 15 Aug 2020, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> Hi!
>
> On Sat, Aug 15, 2020 at 12:10:42PM +0100, Roger Sayle wrote:
> > I'll quote Joseph Myers (many thanks) who describes things clearly as:
> > > (a) When both arguments are NaNs, the return value should be a qNaN,
> > > but sometimes it is an
Hi!
On Sat, Aug 15, 2020 at 12:10:42PM +0100, Roger Sayle wrote:
> I'll quote Joseph Myers (many thanks) who describes things clearly as:
> > (a) When both arguments are NaNs, the return value should be a qNaN,
> > but sometimes it is an sNaN if at least one argument is an sNaN.
Where is this
