> >
> >It then later decides to undo this and so generates a different order.
> >Question is, is this unexpected or should optimizations in expand be
> >checking for associativity?
>
> It's expected. Once fully in SSA the canonical operand order is lower SSA
> name versions first.
Ah, fair enoug
On June 28, 2017 6:10:27 PM GMT+02:00, Tamar Christina
wrote:
>Hi All,
>
>I noticed something weird with IPA and I'm wondering if it's a bug or
>not.
>
>Given these two functions
>
>double
>check_d_pos (double x, double y)
>{
> return x * __builtin_copysign (1.0, y);
>}
>
>double
>check_d_neg (d
