This is the mail archive of the
gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
[Bug target/12654] [3.3/3.4 regression] Incorrect comparison code generated for Alpha
- From: "falk dot hueffner at student dot uni-tuebingen dot de" <gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- To: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: 27 Oct 2003 22:59:10 -0000
- Subject: [Bug target/12654] [3.3/3.4 regression] Incorrect comparison code generated for Alpha
- References: <20031017020801.12654.tg at swox dot com>
- Reply-to: gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org
PLEASE REPLY TO gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org ONLY, *NOT* gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12654
------- Additional Comments From falk dot hueffner at student dot uni-tuebingen dot de 2003-10-27 22:59 -------
Subject: Re: [3.3/3.4 regression] Incorrect comparison code generated for Alpha
"tg at swox dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org> writes:
> This is not good. The compiler will never do unsigned comparisons
> against zero.
Not sure what you mean. If you mean that we never see (gtu x
(const_int 0)), then that's wrong.
> Why didn't you just use the simple and correct patch I supplied?
Because it yields worse code, for example for
int i_lt_0(int i) { if (i < 0) abort(); }