--- Comment #9 from gangren at google dot com 2007-06-12 18:58 ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> if later compilation passes could prove that the computation
> overflowed in short, then the result would be different than if the
> computation
> were done in int.
The res
--- Comment #7 from gangren at google dot com 2007-06-12 18:10 ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> Subject: Re: Unnecessary conversion from short to unsigend short breaks
> vectorization
>
> On 12 Jun 2007 17:53:19 -0000, gangren at google dot com
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]&
--- Comment #5 from gangren at google dot com 2007-06-12 17:53 ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> >Do you mean that short_var + short_var is defined as
> > (short)((unsigned short)short_var + (unsigned short)short_var)?
>
> Kinda, because it is really defined by
--- Comment #2 from gangren at google dot com 2007-06-12 17:28 ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> The conversions are not Unnecessary, they are necessary because
> short_var+short_var when that would overflow the range of short is still
> defined.
>
Do you mean that short_var
gnu dot org
ReportedBy: gangren at google dot com
GCC build triplet: i686-unknown-linux-gnu-gcc
GCC host triplet: i686-unknown-linux-gnu-gcc
GCC target triplet: i686-unknown-linux-gnu-gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32309
