subject:"\[Bug target\/70052\] ICE compiling

[Bug target/70052] ICE compiling _Decimal128 test case

2016-03-25 Thread amodra at gcc dot gnu.org

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70052 --- Comment #6 from Alan Modra --- Author: amodra Date: Fri Mar 25 09:10:03 2016 New Revision: 234479 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234479&root=gcc&view=rev Log: [RS6000] PR70052, ICE compiling _Decimal128 test case gcc/ PR targe

[Bug target/70052] ICE compiling _Decimal128 test case

2016-03-23 Thread amodra at gmail dot com

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70052 Alan Modra changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned at g

[Bug target/70052] ICE compiling _Decimal128 test case

2016-03-23 Thread meissner at gcc dot gnu.org

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70052 --- Comment #5 from Michael Meissner --- The intention of the "j" operand is to provide an alternative that can easily set the floating point value to 0 via XXLXOR. If decimal64 0.0 is not all 0 bits, then we shouldn't allow that alternative. S

[Bug target/70052] ICE compiling _Decimal128 test case

2016-03-23 Thread amodra at gmail dot com

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70052 --- Comment #4 from Alan Modra --- Created attachment 38072 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=38072&action=edit tentative patch This hasn't been tested much, apart from verifying that the testcase compiles. I also find that I