On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 12:58 PM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 11:18 AM, Hurugalawadi, Naveen
> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
Works for me if you specify -fno-math-errno. I think that's a
"regression" we can accept.
>>
>> Modified the pattern with "fno-math-errno" as a condition.
On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 11:18 AM, Hurugalawadi, Naveen
wrote:
> Hi,
>
>>> Works for me if you specify -fno-math-errno. I think that's a
>>> "regression" we can accept.
>
> Modified the pattern with "fno-math-errno" as a condition.
>
>>> Can you re-post with the typo fix and the missing :s?
>
> Pl
Hi,
>> Works for me if you specify -fno-math-errno. I think that's a
>> "regression" we can accept.
Modified the pattern with "fno-math-errno" as a condition.
>> Can you re-post with the typo fix and the missing :s?
Please find attached the modified patch as per the review comments.
Please sug
On Thu, 20 Aug 2015, Richard Biener wrote:
On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 7:38 AM, Marc Glisse wrote:
On Thu, 20 Aug 2015, Hurugalawadi, Naveen wrote:
The following testcase does not generate "x" as needed.
double t (double x)
{
x = sqrt (x) * sqrt (x);
return x;
}
On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 7:38 AM, Marc Glisse wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Aug 2015, Hurugalawadi, Naveen wrote:
>
>> The following testcase does not generate "x" as needed.
>>
>> double t (double x)
>> {
>> x = sqrt (x) * sqrt (x);
>> return x;
>> }
>>
>
>
> With -
On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 6:48 AM, Hurugalawadi, Naveen
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Thanks again for your review and useful comments.
>
>>> I see. But I can't really help without a testcase that I can use to have a
>>> look
>>> (same for the above issue with the segfaults).
>
> The following testcase does no
On Thu, 20 Aug 2015, Hurugalawadi, Naveen wrote:
The following testcase does not generate "x" as needed.
double t (double x)
{
x = sqrt (x) * sqrt (x);
return x;
}
With -fno-math-errno, we CSE the calls to sqrt, so I would expect this to
match:
(m
Hi,
Thanks again for your review and useful comments.
>> I see. But I can't really help without a testcase that I can use to have a
>> look
>> (same for the above issue with the segfaults).
The following testcase does not generate "x" as needed.
double t (double x)
{
x =
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 6:53 AM, Hurugalawadi, Naveen
wrote:
> Hi Richard,
>
> Thanks very much for your review and comments.
>
>>> Can you point me to which patterns exhibit this behavior?
>
> root(x)*root(y) as root(x*y)
> expN(x)*expN(y) as expN(x+y)
> pow(x,y)*pow(x,z) as pow(x,y+z)
> x/expN(y
Hi Richard,
Thanks very much for your review and comments.
>> Can you point me to which patterns exhibit this behavior?
root(x)*root(y) as root(x*y)
expN(x)*expN(y) as expN(x+y)
pow(x,y)*pow(x,z) as pow(x,y+z)
x/expN(y) into x*expN(-y)
Long Double and Float variants FAIL with segmentation fau
On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 7:24 AM, Hurugalawadi, Naveen
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Please find attached the modified patch as per the comments.
>
> Tested the patch on AArch64 and X86 without any regressions.
>
> The other hunks of the earlier patch have been removed as per the earlier
> comments due to failu
Hi,
Please find attached the modified patch as per the comments.
Tested the patch on AArch64 and X86 without any regressions.
The other hunks of the earlier patch have been removed as per the earlier
comments due to failure in regressions.
Investigated those issues and found that its because of
12 matches
Mail list logo
