On 3 December 2014 at 10:30, Alan Lawrence wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 04:35:50PM +, James Greenhalgh wrote:
>> Why do we want to turn off folding for the V4SF/V2SF/V2DF modes of these
>> intrinsics? There should be no difference between the mid-end definition
>> and the intrinsic definit
On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 04:35:50PM +, James Greenhalgh wrote:
> Why do we want to turn off folding for the V4SF/V2SF/V2DF modes of these
> intrinsics? There should be no difference between the mid-end definition
> and the intrinsic definition of their behaviour.
Good point. Done.
> I also no
On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 03:56:03PM +, Alan Lawrence wrote:
> So in case there's any confusion about the behaviour expected of *the vabs
> intrinsic*, here's a testcase (failing without patch, passing with it)...
>
> --Alan
>
> Alan Lawrence wrote:
> > ...as the former is defined as returning
So in case there's any confusion about the behaviour expected of *the vabs
intrinsic*, here's a testcase (failing without patch, passing with it)...
--Alan
Alan Lawrence wrote:
...as the former is defined as returning MIN_VALUE for argument MIN_VALUE,
whereas the latter is 'undefined', and gcc
...as the former is defined as returning MIN_VALUE for argument MIN_VALUE,
whereas the latter is 'undefined', and gcc can optimize "abs(x)>=0" to "true",
which is wrong for __builtin_aarch64_abs.
There has been much debate here, although not recently - I think the last was
https://gcc.gnu.org/
