[Bug target/44261] Multiplying -1 by NaN is not valid.

2010-06-19 Thread danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #7 from danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-19 18:28 --- Subject: Bug 44261 Author: danglin Date: Sat Jun 19 18:28:28 2010 New Revision: 161035 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=161035 Log: Backport from mainline 2010-05-29 John David

[Bug target/44261] Multiplying -1 by NaN is not valid.

2010-06-19 Thread danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #6 from danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-19 18:25 --- Subject: Bug 44261 Author: danglin Date: Sat Jun 19 18:25:28 2010 New Revision: 161034 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=161034 Log: Backport from mainline 2010-05-29 John David

[Bug target/44261] Multiplying -1 by NaN is not valid.

2010-05-29 Thread danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #5 from danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-29 14:33 --- Fixed on trunk. -- danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|

[Bug target/44261] Multiplying -1 by NaN is not valid.

2010-05-29 Thread danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #4 from danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-29 14:16 --- Subject: Bug 44261 Author: danglin Date: Sat May 29 14:16:11 2010 New Revision: 160027 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=160027 Log: PR target/44261 config/pa/pa.md (negdf2_slow,

[Bug target/44261] Multiplying -1 by NaN is not valid.

2010-05-24 Thread dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca
--- Comment #2 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2010-05-24 18:11 --- Subject: Re: Multiplying -1 by NaN is not valid. On Mon, 24 May 2010, rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote: > Well - GCC has fallback expansions for some sign-related instructions by doing > bit-fiddling

[Bug target/44261] Multiplying -1 by NaN is not valid.

2010-05-24 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #1 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-24 17:55 --- Well - GCC has fallback expansions for some sign-related instructions by doing bit-fiddling instead. I think that's whats required if the arch cannot do a IEEE negate. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cg