On Mon, 1 Aug 2016, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote: > On 30 July 2016 at 02:57, Joseph Myers <jos...@codesourcery.com> wrote: > > On Tue, 26 Jul 2016, Richard Sandiford wrote: > > > >> (which are really just extended tree codes). I suppose copysign is > >> a special case since we can always open code it, but in general we > >> shouldn't fall back to something that could generate a call. > > > > We can't always open code copysign (IBM long double, see PR 58797). > Hi, > Thanks for pointing that out. > The attached patch doesn't transform x/abs(x) -> copysign(1.0, x) > for long double. > OK for trunk ?
I don't think so - the pattern is as much a canonicalization as an optimization. If the target cannot expand copysign then the middle-end expander should try an alternative like the a / abs(x) form. Though if copysign cannot be open-coded then I don't see how abs can be opencoded (which basically is copysign (1.0, x)). Richard.
