This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: teach simplify_rtx to simplify unordered compares


> >     REAL_VALUE_FROM_CONST_DOUBLE (d0, args->op0);
> >     REAL_VALUE_FROM_CONST_DOUBLE (d1, args->op1);
> > +   if (REAL_VALUE_ISNAN (d0)
> > +       || REAL_VALUE_ISNAN (d1))
> > +     args->unordered = 1;
> > +   else
> > +     args->unordered = 0;
> 
> This chunk of code seems odd.  Is the first set of args->unordered
> really necessary?
I was taking care here for REAL_VALUE_FROM_CONST_DOUBLE possibly causing
an exception.
I agree that I can remove the set in the if, but I did wanted the
unordered test to be in the "possitive" case, since it looks cleaner
and I didn't wanted to put empty statement into then-path.

Honza
> 
> -- 
> - Geoffrey Keating <geoffk@geoffk.org>

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]