https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70708
Marc Glisse <glisse at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|RESOLVED |NEW
Resolution|FIXED |---
--- Comment #11 from Marc Glisse <glisse at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
As I told you in the other PR, movq is *NOT* what the PRs are asking for, it
was just a side remark. If you consider clang's code completely broken and
gcc's code optimal, then the PR is invalid. Otherwise, it needs to stay open.
Since for MyMinV1 we generate no move at all, then that code should also be
valid for MyMinV2 (no issue with sNaN in the upper part or whatever).
