[RFA][PATCH][PR tree-optimization/45685]

[Jeff Law]

On 12/11/13 08:11, Richard Biener wrote:
>> Bah.  That was supposed to be HONOR_SIGNED_ZEROS.  Which as far as I can
>> tell is a property of the value being tested.
>
> No, it's
>
> invert_tree_comparison (enum tree_code code, bool honor_nans)
>
> so indeed HONOR_NANS.  And yes, on a conditional argument
> (it can be a FP comparison but a integer negate).
I realized I was wrong after I went downstairs for breakfast :-)  Ignore 
my last message WRT HONOR_NANs and HONOR_SIGNED_ZEROs.

Jeff