https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84527
Kai Tietz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84527
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
No, signed comparison is very different from unsigned comparison, and only
unsigned comparison < is usable for this. Borrow flag reflects unsigned signed
comparison result rather than signed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84527
--- Comment #4 from Kai Tietz ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #3)
> ..., but that just means it is not the right code for f1 and f3.
Right, that produced code depends on the sign of the condition arguments seems
to be pretty wrong
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84527
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84527
--- Comment #2 from Uroš Bizjak ---
Try with the unsigned arguments.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84527
--- Comment #1 from Kai Tietz ---
For x86 we produce for sample:
movl8(%esp), %eax
cmpl%eax, 4(%esp)
setge %al
movzbl %al, %eax
leal-1(%eax,%eax), %eax
ret
which could be expressed w
