On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 6:10 PM, Janne Blomqvist
wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 4:26 PM, Thomas König wrote:
>
>> Hi Kyrlll,
>>
>> > Am 18.07.2018 um 13:17 schrieb Kyrill Tkachov <
>> kyrylo.tkac...@foss.arm.com>:
>> >
>> > Thomas, Janne, would this relaxation of NaN handling be acceptable
>>
On Wed, 18 Jul 2018, Janne Blomqvist wrote:
> minimumNumber(a, NaN) = minimumNumber(NaN, a) = a
>
> That is minimumNumber corresponds to minnum in IEEE 754-2008 and fmin* in
No, it differs in the handling of signaling NaNs (with minimumNumber, if
the NaN argument is signaling, it results in the
Hi Richard,
On 18/07/18 16:27, Richard Sandiford wrote:
Thanks for doing this.
Kyrill Tkachov writes:
+ calc = build_call_expr_internal_loc (input_location, ifn, type,
+ 2, mvar, convert (type, val));
(indentation looks off)
diff --git a/gcc/tes
Thanks for doing this.
Kyrill Tkachov writes:
> + calc = build_call_expr_internal_loc (input_location, ifn, type,
> + 2, mvar, convert (type, val));
(indentation looks off)
> diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/max_fmaxl_aarch64.f90
> b/gcc/testsuite
On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 4:26 PM, Thomas König wrote:
> Hi Kyrlll,
>
> > Am 18.07.2018 um 13:17 schrieb Kyrill Tkachov <
> kyrylo.tkac...@foss.arm.com>:
> >
> > Thomas, Janne, would this relaxation of NaN handling be acceptable given
> the benefits
> > mentioned above? If so, what would be the rec
On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 5:03 PM, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
>
> On 18/07/18 14:26, Thomas König wrote:
>
>> Hi Kyrlll,
>>
>> Am 18.07.2018 um 13:17 schrieb Kyrill Tkachov <
>>> kyrylo.tkac...@foss.arm.com>:
>>>
>>> Thomas, Janne, would this relaxation of NaN handling be acceptable given
>>> the benefi
On 18/07/18 14:26, Thomas König wrote:
Hi Kyrlll,
Am 18.07.2018 um 13:17 schrieb Kyrill Tkachov :
Thomas, Janne, would this relaxation of NaN handling be acceptable given the
benefits
mentioned above? If so, what would be the recommended adjustment to the
nan_1.f90 test?
I would be a bit c
Hi Kyrlll,
> Am 18.07.2018 um 13:17 schrieb Kyrill Tkachov :
>
> Thomas, Janne, would this relaxation of NaN handling be acceptable given the
> benefits
> mentioned above? If so, what would be the recommended adjustment to the
> nan_1.f90 test?
I would be a bit careful about changing behavior
Hi all,
Thank you for the feedback so far.
This version of the patch doesn't try to emit fmin/fmax function calls but
instead
emits MIN/MAX_EXPR sequences unconditionally.
I think a source of confusion in the original proposal (for me at least) was
that on aarch64 (that I primarily work on) we i
