On Sun, 30 Jun 2013, Shiva Chen wrote:
> But how the target generate abs instruction if the target abs have
> saturation behavior ?
> We couldn't use abssi2 naming pattern and ss_abssi2 naming pattern
> doesn't exist.
If you want to use a saturating abs instruction for C code that exhibits
undef
Prompted by a Stack Overflow article :-
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/17332749/vs2013-fails-with-variadic-template-specialization/
There seems to be anomalies between GCC 4.8.1's 0x11 implementation
and the standard.
It shows the code :-
template struct OpF;
template struct
On 30 June 2013 18:17, Aaron Gray wrote:
> Prompted by a Stack Overflow article :-
>
>
> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/17332749/vs2013-fails-with-variadic-template-specialization/
>
> There seems to be anomalies between GCC 4.8.1's 0x11 implementation
> and the standard.
Then please repo
Thank you for all your kindly help make the issue more clear.
Currently, we would disable abssi2 pattern and the soft-fp could work correctly.
Thanks all the explanation and assistance.
I really appreciate it.
2013/6/30 Joseph S. Myers :
> On Sun, 30 Jun 2013, Shiva Chen wrote:
>
>> But how the ta
I tried -Og optimization on a recent svn snapshot of 4.8 and don't see
much difference in the code compared to -O1. If anything, at least for
one case, -Og is actually less debuggable than -O1, e.g., for a simple
buffer selection like this:
uint8_t* buffer;
if (condx == true)
buffer =
Have you compared it to -Os? That seems to produce assembly closer to what you
would likely write by hand. I haven't benchmarked it much but it gives 7-10%
smaller code in general. In many cases, fewer instructions is also a
performance win.
Gene Smith wrote:
I tried -Og optimization on a r
