This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: libgcc2 __fixsfdi
On Tue, Oct 08, 2002 at 05:12:13PM +0930, Alan Modra wrote:
> Yes, and that's probably the strongest argument I have for float
> -> int conversions to peg at signed max/min. If float -> unsigned
> peg at unsigned max, then it why not something similar for signed
> conversions?
I dunno. I'm of two minds here. On the one hand, pegging at
particular values makes mathematic sense. On the other,
overflow is undefined (at least in C, C++, and Fortran), so
there's little point spending any energy on it. You're
increasing the code size in libgcc for no apparent gain.
Anyone else out there have an opinion?
> Also, a reminder that neither your or my fix to __floatdisf has
> been applied yet..
Oh, right. Let's go with yours for now, since it uses fewer
operations.
r~