https://gcc.gnu.org/g:076eefb48d7720ad4e609fb8b5ad84e1da57e3a2
commit 076eefb48d7720ad4e609fb8b5ad84e1da57e3a2
Author: Michael Meissner <meiss...@linux.ibm.com>
Date: Thu Feb 6 15:12:34 2025 -0500
Update ChangeLog.*
Diff:
---
gcc/ChangeLog.bugs | 15 ++++++++++++++-
1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/gcc/ChangeLog.bugs b/gcc/ChangeLog.bugs
index 285b35930a1c..4bedd11965be 100644
--- a/gcc/ChangeLog.bugs
+++ b/gcc/ChangeLog.bugs
@@ -1,7 +1,9 @@
-==================== Branch work192-bugs, patch #211 ====================
+==================== Branch work192-bugs, patch #214 ====================
Fix PR 118541, do not generate unordered fp cmoves for IEEE compares.
+This is version 2 of the patch.
+
In bug PR target/118541 on power9, power10, and power11 systems, for the
function:
@@ -77,6 +79,16 @@ power11:
xxsel 1,4,3,1
blr
+Changes from the V1 patch:
+
+1: I added a test in invert_fpmask_comparison_operator to not allow UNLE and
+UNLT unless fast math is in force. Both invert_fpmask_comparison_operator and
+fpmask_comparison_operator are used to form floating point conditional moves on
+Power9 and beyond.
+
+2: I reworked rs6000_reverse_condition to be a bit clearer when we are
rejecting
+reversing IEEE comparisons that guarantee they don't trap.
+
I have built bootstrap compilers on big endian power9 systems and little endian
power9/power10 systems and there were no regressions. Can I check this patch
into the GCC trunk, and after a waiting period, can I check this into the
active
@@ -104,6 +116,7 @@ gcc/testsuite/
PR target/118541
* gcc.target/powerpc/pr118541.c: New test.
+==================== Branch work192-bugs, patch #213 was reverted
====================
==================== Branch work192-bugs, patch #212 was reverted
====================
==================== Branch work192-bugs, patch #211 was reverted
====================
==================== Branch work192-bugs, patch #210 was reverted
====================
