On Fri, Oct 14, 2022 at 5:00 PM Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> On Fri, Oct 14, 2022 at 04:53:13PM +0200, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
> > > This looks wrong to me.
> > > !HONOR_NANS is different from !HONOR_SIGNED_ZEROS.
> > > The former says that either NaNs aren't supported or if they appear,
> > > it will b
On Fri, Oct 14, 2022 at 04:53:13PM +0200, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
> > This looks wrong to me.
> > !HONOR_NANS is different from !HONOR_SIGNED_ZEROS.
> > The former says that either NaNs aren't supported or if they appear,
> > it will be UB.
> > The latter says that either -0.0 doesn't exist, or user
On Fri, Oct 14, 2022 at 4:33 PM Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> On Fri, Oct 14, 2022 at 04:26:50PM +0200, Aldy Hernandez via Gcc-patches
> wrote:
> > Similar to what we do for NANs when !HONOR_NANS and Inf when
> > flag_finite_math_only, we can remove -0.0 from the range at creation
> > time.
> >
> > We
On Fri, Oct 14, 2022 at 04:26:50PM +0200, Aldy Hernandez via Gcc-patches wrote:
> Similar to what we do for NANs when !HONOR_NANS and Inf when
> flag_finite_math_only, we can remove -0.0 from the range at creation
> time.
>
> We were kinda sorta doing this because there is a bug in
> real_isdenorm
Similar to what we do for NANs when !HONOR_NANS and Inf when
flag_finite_math_only, we can remove -0.0 from the range at creation
time.
We were kinda sorta doing this because there is a bug in
real_isdenormal that is causing flush_denormals_to_zero to saturate
[x, -0.0] to [x, +0.0] when !HONOR_SI
