[PATCH] Don't fail on SS_ABS

Bernd Schmidt bernds_cb1@t-online.de
Mon Oct 19 23:20:00 GMT 2009

Jie Zhang wrote:
> Hi Bernd,
> Bernd Schmidt wrote:
>> Jie Zhang wrote:
>>> SS_ABS is not handled in simplify_const_unary_operation and ss_abs is
>>> not documented. This patch fixes these. Is it OK for mainline?
>>> +@code{ss_abs} ensures that an out-of-bounds result saturates to the
>>> +maximum signed value.
>>> +
>> Maybe clarify that as "maximum positive number representable as a signed
>> value"?  Otherwise ok.
> But "maximum signed value" is the same meaning of "maximum positive
> number representable as a signed value", isn't? I prefer the former,
> which is simple and short. Is it OK if I commit the original patch?

Go on then.  If there's a native speaker reading this who prefers one
form or the other we should probably let them choose, but I guess it's
not that important.

This footer brought to you by insane German lawmakers.
Analog Devices GmbH      Wilhelm-Wagenfeld-Str. 6      80807 Muenchen
Sitz der Gesellschaft Muenchen, Registergericht Muenchen HRB 40368
Geschaeftsfuehrer Thomas Wessel, William A. Martin, Margaret Seif

More information about the Gcc-patches mailing list