> -Original Message-
> From: gcc-ow...@gcc.gnu.org [mailto:gcc-ow...@gcc.gnu.org] On Behalf Of
> Andreas Schwab
> Sent: 09 May 2013 09:52
> To: Paulo J. Matos
> Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: BImode and STORE_VALUE_FLAG
>
> "Paulo J. Matos" write
"Paulo J. Matos" writes:
> Further to this matter, can you explain the reasoning behind
> vector-compare-1.c?
Vector comparisons are different.
Andreas.
--
Andreas Schwab, sch...@linux-m68k.org
GPG Key fingerprint = 58CA 54C7 6D53 942B 1756 01D3 44D5 214B 8276 4ED5
"And now for something com
On 08/05/13 23:10, Andreas Schwab wrote:
"Paulo J. Matos" writes:
Shouldn't we expect ires to be -1 (STORE_FLAG_VALUE)
??? Boolean expressions in C evaluate to 0/1.
Andreas.
Agreed, I worked till too late yesterday, I am sorry.
Further to this matter, can you explain the reasoning behind
"Paulo J. Matos" writes:
> Shouldn't we expect ires to be -1 (STORE_FLAG_VALUE)
??? Boolean expressions in C evaluate to 0/1.
Andreas.
--
Andreas Schwab, sch...@linux-m68k.org
GPG Key fingerprint = 58CA 54C7 6D53 942B 1756 01D3 44D5 214B 8276 4ED5
"And now for something completely different.
On 08/05/13 21:29, Andreas Schwab wrote:
"Paulo J. Matos" writes:
As I expected. That doesn't sound good
In which way is it not good?
Andreas.
Shouldn't we expect ires to be -1 (STORE_FLAG_VALUE) and therefore the
condition of the if be false if everything is fine?
Otherwise if, indep
"Paulo J. Matos" writes:
> As I expected. That doesn't sound good
In which way is it not good?
Andreas.
--
Andreas Schwab, sch...@linux-m68k.org
GPG Key fingerprint = 58CA 54C7 6D53 942B 1756 01D3 44D5 214B 8276 4ED5
"And now for something completely different."
On 08/05/13 14:54, Andreas Schwab wrote:
I'm getting "1 != ((2 >= 2 ? -1 : 0)" with 4.7.3.
Andreas.
As I expected. That doesn't sound good but I am unsure on what to do
about it. I will investigate the case further tomorrow.
I expect m68k to also fail the vector-compare-1.c gcc test, is t
"Paulo Matos" writes:
> I haven't tried to run it in m68k-linux since I don't have binutils-m68k
> installed but I assume it will print something like:
> -1 != ((2 >= 2 ? -1 : 0)
>
> and return exit code 1.
I'm getting "1 != ((2 >= 2 ? -1 : 0)" with 4.7.3.
Andreas.
--
Andreas Schwab, SUSE La
> -Original Message-
> From: Mikael Pettersson [mailto:mi...@it.uu.se]
> Sent: 04 May 2013 11:51
> To: Paulo Matos
> Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: BImode and STORE_VALUE_FLAG
>
> I can't comment on the code in question, but the backend for m68k may be
"Paulo Matos" writes:
> So I guess the problem (which might not be a problem after all can't be
> reproduced in m68k and
> it's fine.
I don't think m68k is using BImode anywhere.
Andreas.
--
Andreas Schwab, SUSE Labs, sch...@suse.de
GPG Key fingerprint = 0196 BAD8 1CE9 1970 F4BE 1748 E4D4 8
> -Original Message-
> From: gcc-ow...@gcc.gnu.org [mailto:gcc-ow...@gcc.gnu.org] On Behalf Of Paulo
> Matos
> Sent: 07 May 2013 14:19
> To: Mikael Pettersson
> Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: RE: BImode and STORE_VALUE_FLAG
>
> In the meantime, where is FPmode
> -Original Message-
> From: Mikael Pettersson [mailto:mi...@it.uu.se]
> Sent: 04 May 2013 11:51
> To: Paulo Matos
> Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: BImode and STORE_VALUE_FLAG
>
>
> I can't comment on the code in question, but the backend for m68k may
Mikael,
I haven't really tried m68k and I can't say I know anything about it but
it will only be affected by this issue I am seeing if it generates
instructions of the form:
(set (reg:BI ...)
(:BI (reg:SI ...) (const_int ...)))
If you have something like this then as soon as you expand t
On Fri, 3 May 2013 12:49:14 +, Paulo Matos wrote:
> Hello,
>
> It seems to me there's a bug in
> simplify_const_relational_operation:simplify-rtx.c.
> If you set STORE_VALUE_FLAG to -1, if you get to
> simplify_const_relational_operation
> with code: NE, mode: BImode, op0: reg, op1: const_
14 matches
Mail list logo
