On 11 February 2011 00:20, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On 02/09/2011 08:55 AM, Anitha Boyapati wrote:
>> Reverse-conditional Branch
>>
>>> (jump_insn 9 8 34 3 gt.c:4 (set (pc)
>>> (if_then_else (gt:CC (cc0)
>>> (const_int 0 [0x0]))
>>> (pc))) -1 (nil))
>>>
On 02/09/2011 08:55 AM, Anitha Boyapati wrote:
> Direct-conditional branch
>
>> (jump_insn 9 8 34 3 gt.c:4 (set (pc)
>> (if_then_else (gt:CC (cc0)
>> (const_int 0 [0x0]))
>> (label_ref 12)
>> (pc))) -1 (nil))
>
> Reverse-conditional Branch
>
>> (ju
On 9 February 2011 22:28, Richard Guenther wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 5:55 PM, Anitha Boyapati
> wrote:
>> On 9 February 2011 20:34, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>>
I would like to know what prompts gcc to decide if "le" can be used in
the expand pass rather than "gt" operator. Or more
On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 5:55 PM, Anitha Boyapati
wrote:
> On 9 February 2011 20:34, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>
>>> I would like to know what prompts gcc to decide if "le" can be used in
>>> the expand pass rather than "gt" operator. Or more precisely why it
>>> differs incase of float.
>>
>> The ch
On 9 February 2011 20:34, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>> I would like to know what prompts gcc to decide if "le" can be used in
>> the expand pass rather than "gt" operator. Or more precisely why it
>> differs incase of float.
>
> The choice of LE when using int is just a happenstance of the way that
Anitha Boyapati writes:
> int main() {
> volatile int a, b;
> if(a>b) return 1;
> else return 2;
>
> }
>
> Expand pass shows that "le"operator is chosen.
>
> (jump_insn 9 8 10 3 gt_int.c:4 (set (pc)
> (if_then_else (le:CC (cc0)
> (const_int 0 [0x0
