22 05:56
> To: Jeff Law
> Cc: Andrew MacLeod ; Roger Sayle
> ; Richard Biener
> ; GCC Patches
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] Ignore (possible) signed zeros in operands of FP
> comparisons.
>
> On Fri, Mar 18, 2022 at 7:33 PM Aldy Hernandez wrote:
>
> >
On Fri, Mar 18, 2022 at 7:33 PM Aldy Hernandez wrote:
> > > Consider the following interesting example:
> > >
> > > int foo(int x, double y) {
> > > return (x * 0.0) < y;
> > > }
> > >
> > > Although we know that x (when converted to double) can't be NaN or
> > >>
t;>>> From: Richard Biener
> >>>> Sent: 15 March 2022 07:29
> >>>> To: Roger Sayle
> >>>> Cc: GCC Patches
> >>>> Subject: Re: [PATCH] Ignore (possible) signed zeros in operands of FP
> >>>> comparisons.
> &
On Fri, Mar 18, 2022 at 2:07 PM Andrew MacLeod wrote:
>
> On 3/18/22 03:43, Roger Sayle wrote:
> > Hi Jeff/Andrew,
> >> If you're going to do more work in this space, you might want to reach out
> >> to
> >> Aldy and Andrew to see if there's space for collaboration.
> > One (clever?) suggestion t
zeros in operands of FP
comparisons.
On Mon, Mar 14, 2022 at 8:26 PM Roger Sayle
wrote:
I've been wondering about the possible
performance/missed-optimization
impact of my patch for PR middle-end/98420 and similar IEEE
correctness fixes that disable constant folding optimizations
On 3/17/22 19:27, Jeff Law via Gcc-patches wrote:
On 3/15/2022 2:03 AM, Roger Sayle wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Richard Biener
Sent: 15 March 2022 07:29
To: Roger Sayle
Cc: GCC Patches
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Ignore (possible) signed zeros in operands of FP
comparisons.
On Mon
On 3/18/22 03:43, Roger Sayle wrote:
Hi Jeff/Andrew,
If you're going to do more work in this space, you might want to reach out to
Aldy and Andrew to see if there's space for collaboration.
One (clever?) suggestion that I do have for ranger would be to add support for
an additional value_range_
y were in place, I/the compiler would
be able to make use of it.
Cheers,
Roger
--
> -Original Message-
> From: Jeff Law
> Sent: 17 March 2022 23:28
> To: Roger Sayle ; 'Richard Biener'
>
> Cc: 'GCC Patches'
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] Ignore (possible) si
On 3/17/22 19:27, Jeff Law via Gcc-patches wrote:
On 3/15/2022 2:03 AM, Roger Sayle wrote:
Speaking of tree-ssa passes that could be improved, I was wondering
whether
you could review my EVRP patch to fix regression PR/102950. Pretty
please?
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2022-
On 3/15/2022 2:03 AM, Roger Sayle wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Richard Biener
Sent: 15 March 2022 07:29
To: Roger Sayle
Cc: GCC Patches
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Ignore (possible) signed zeros in operands of FP
comparisons.
On Mon, Mar 14, 2022 at 8:26 PM Roger Sayle
wrote:
I&#x
Richard Biener via Gcc-patches writes:
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2022 at 8:26 PM Roger Sayle
> wrote:
>> I've been wondering about the possible performance/missed-optimization
>> impact of my patch for PR middle-end/98420 and similar IEEE correctness
>> fixes that disable constant folding optimizations
On Tue, Mar 15, 2022 at 9:03 AM Roger Sayle wrote:
>
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Richard Biener
> > Sent: 15 March 2022 07:29
> > To: Roger Sayle
> > Cc: GCC Patches
> > Subject: Re: [PATCH] Ignore (possible) signed zeros in operands of
> -Original Message-
> From: Richard Biener
> Sent: 15 March 2022 07:29
> To: Roger Sayle
> Cc: GCC Patches
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] Ignore (possible) signed zeros in operands of FP
> comparisons.
>
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2022 at 8:26 PM Roger Sayle
> wrote:
&
On Mon, Mar 14, 2022 at 8:26 PM Roger Sayle wrote:
>
>
> I've been wondering about the possible performance/missed-optimization
> impact of my patch for PR middle-end/98420 and similar IEEE correctness
> fixes that disable constant folding optimizations when worrying about -0.0.
> In the common si
14 matches
Mail list logo
