> Am 20.08.2019 um 17:50 schrieb Segher Boessenkool
> <seg...@kernel.crashing.org>:
>
> On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 11:18:38AM +0200, Ilya Leoshkevich wrote:
>> Currently it's not clear whether or not min, max and ltgt should raise
>> floating point exceptions when dealing with qNaNs.
>>
>> Right now a lot of code assumes that LTGT is signaling: in particular,
>> it's generated for ((x < y) || (x > y)), which is signaling. The
>> behavior of MIN/MAX is (intentionally?) left unspecified, according to
>> commit 64dd117734d0 ("Unconditionally use MAX_EXPR/MIN_EXPR for MAX/MIN
>> intrinsics").
>
> Btw, this is not the difference between LTGT and NE, which is exactly
> the same difference as that between LT and UNLT: if NaNs are allowed,
> the first is false for unordered, while the second is true. If NaNs
> are not allowed, only one of the two is generated.
>
> (0 UNORD)
> LT UNLT
> EQ UNEQ
> LE UNLE
> GT UNGT
> LTGT NE
> GE UNGE
> (ORD 1)
This matches my understanding (modulo signaling). cThis also doesn't
contradict the proposed manual update, right?
> There is currently no way to say (in trees or gimple or rtl) whether
> comparisons are signaling ("ordered", generate a trap on an unordered
> result). I am working on this, but :-)
Isn't there? This whole series is based on the following assumption:
LT, LE, GT, GE are definitely signaling; LTGT is most likely signaling
as well; the rest are not signaling. This is based on gccint 11.6.3:
Unary and Binary Expressions.
