https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82170
Paul Eggert changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|7.1.1 |8.3.1
--- Comment #10 from Paul Eggert --
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82170
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|x86_64-*-* |x86_64-*-*, powerpc*-*-*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82170
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
To summarize IRC discussions about this, the first step should be to introduce
SEXT_EXPR (split from Prathamesh's patch, improve), then add match.pd
canonicalization of these range testing to SEXT_EXPR + EQ_E
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82170
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
More complete testcase:
extern inline int f1 (long long n) { return -__INT_MAX__ - 1 <= n && n <=
__INT_MAX__; }
extern inline int f2 (long long n) { return n == (int) n; }
extern inline int f3 (unsigned long
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82170
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82170
Paul Eggert changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #42149|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82170
Paul Eggert changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #42148|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82170
--- Comment #3 from Paul Eggert ---
(In reply to Marc Glisse from comment #2)
> Note that n==(int)n (gcc documents that this must work) may work with more
> gcc versions and is more readable.
Thanks, good point, I'll suggest switching to that in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82170
--- Comment #2 from Marc Glisse ---
Note that n==(int)n (gcc documents that this must work) may work with more gcc
versions and is more readable.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82170
--- Comment #1 from Paul Eggert ---
Created attachment 42149
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42149&action=edit
assembly-language output for poorly-optimized code
10 matches
Mail list logo
