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
11 matches
Mail list logo
