https://gcc.gnu.org/g:0ef072cfea54663d85a77c45bf1eda6984f17aad
commit 0ef072cfea54663d85a77c45bf1eda6984f17aad
Author: Michael Meissner <meiss...@linux.ibm.com>
Date: Wed Feb 12 15:22:14 2025 -0500
Update ChangeLog.*
Diff:
---
gcc/ChangeLog.bugs | 19 +++++++++++++++++--
1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/gcc/ChangeLog.bugs b/gcc/ChangeLog.bugs
index 329d928c50d6..89e1b7ac40e4 100644
--- a/gcc/ChangeLog.bugs
+++ b/gcc/ChangeLog.bugs
@@ -1,9 +1,23 @@
-==================== Branch work193-bugs, patch #211 ====================
+==================== Branch work193-bugs, patch #212 ====================
Fix PR 118541, do not generate unordered fp cmoves for IEEE compares.
This is version 3 of the patch.
+In version 3, I made the following changes:
+
+ 1: The new argument to rs6000_reverse_condition that says whether we should
+ allow ordered floating point compares to be reversed is now an
+ enumeration instead of a boolean.
+
+ 2: I tried to make the code in rs6000_reverse_condition clearer.
+
+ 3: I added checks in invert_fpmask_comparison_operator to prevent ordered
+ floating point compares from being reversed unless -ffast-math.
+
+ 4: I split the test cases into 4 separate tests (ordered vs. unordered
+ compare and -O2 vs. -Ofast).
+
In bug PR target/118541 on power9, power10, and power11 systems, for the
function:
@@ -84,7 +98,7 @@ 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
older branches?
-2025-02-11 Michael Meissner <meiss...@linux.ibm.com>
+2025-02-12 Michael Meissner <meiss...@linux.ibm.com>
gcc/
@@ -109,6 +123,7 @@ gcc/testsuite/
* gcc.target/powerpc/pr118541-3.c: Likewise.
* gcc.target/powerpc/pr118541-4.c: Likewise.
+==================== Branch work193-bugs, patch #211 was reverted
====================
==================== Branch work193-bugs, patch #210 was reverted
====================
==================== Branch work193-bugs, patch #202 ====================
