https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91323
--- Comment #11 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #10)
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #4)
> > quoting rtl.def:
> >
> > /* This is an ordered NE, ie !UNEQ, ie false for NaN. */
> > DEF_RTL_EXPR(LTGT, "ltgt", "ee", RTX_COMM_COMPARE)
>
> In gensupport.c, we have:
>
> {"ordered_comparison_operator", false, false, {EQ, NE,
> LE, LT, GE, GT,
> LEU, LTU, GEU, GTU}},
> {"comparison_operator", false, false, {EQ, NE,
> LE, LT, GE, GT,
> LEU, LTU, GEU, GTU,
> UNORDERED, ORDERED,
> UNEQ, UNGE, UNGT,
> UNLE, UNLT, LTGT}}
>
> And based on the observation that LTGT = LT || GT, should LTGT be a member
> of ordered_comparison_operator?
@defun ordered_comparison_operator
This predicate matches any expression which performs an arithmetic
comparison in @var{mode} and whose expression code is valid for integer
modes; that is, the expression code will be one of @code{eq}, @code{ne},
@code{lt}, @code{ltu}, @code{le}, @code{leu}, @code{gt}, @code{gtu},
@code{ge}, @code{geu}.
@end defun
I don't think we use LTGT for integer modes, so the answer is no. But
I argue ordered_comparison_operator is named confusingly then.
