On 10/15/2015 07:18 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
Stripping unnecessary sign ops at the gimple level means that we're
no longer able to optimise:
if (cos(y<10 ? -fabs(x) : tan(x<20 ? -x : -fabs(y)))
!= cos(y<10 ? x : tan(x<20 ? x : y)))
link_error ();
because we're currently not a
On Oct 15, 2015, at 1:38 PM, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
> Mike Stump writes:
>> On Oct 15, 2015, at 12:47 PM, Richard Sandiford
>> wrote:
>>> I can see that argument if people are only taking work items from
>>> the PR database. But it's possible (likely even) that people will
>>> independently
Mike Stump writes:
> On Oct 15, 2015, at 12:47 PM, Richard Sandiford
> wrote:
>> I can see that argument if people are only taking work items from
>> the PR database. But it's possible (likely even) that people will
>> independently find a problem like this and just fix it, if the missed
>> opti
On Oct 15, 2015, at 12:47 PM, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
> I can see that argument if people are only taking work items from
> the PR database. But it's possible (likely even) that people will
> independently find a problem like this and just fix it, if the missed
> optimisation happens to be impo
Mike Stump writes:
> On Oct 15, 2015, at 6:18 AM, Richard Sandiford
> wrote:
>> Stripping unnecessary sign ops at the gimple level means that we're
>> no longer able to optimise:
>>
>> if (cos(y<10 ? -fabs(x) : tan(x<20 ? -x : -fabs(y)))
>> != cos(y<10 ? x : tan(x<20 ? x : y)))
>>link_
On Oct 15, 2015, at 6:18 AM, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
> Stripping unnecessary sign ops at the gimple level means that we're
> no longer able to optimise:
>
> if (cos(y<10 ? -fabs(x) : tan(x<20 ? -x : -fabs(y)))
> != cos(y<10 ? x : tan(x<20 ? x : y)))
>link_error ();
>
> because we're
