From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 708 invoked by alias); 10 Dec 2004 20:04:31 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 678 invoked by uid 48); 10 Dec 2004 20:04:26 -0000 Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2004 20:04:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20041210200426.677.qmail@sourceware.org> From: "ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org In-Reply-To: <20041124222749.18665.skunk@iskunk.org> References: <20041124222749.18665.skunk@iskunk.org> Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug other/18665] [3.4/4.0 Regression] -ftrapv borks up simple integer arithmetic X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-SW-Source: 2004-12/txt/msg01553.txt.bz2 List-Id: ------- Additional Comments From ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-12-10 20:04 ------- > If addvsi3 actually performs addvdi3, that will be most surprising to > everyone. I think that's a very bad idea. Since we are not invoking addvsi3, > and I suspect it's impossible to convince the compiler to do so, After your patch, that's indeed the case. > I think there's no reason to provide the backward compatibility function at > all; the symbol was unused and unusable. Except that, before your patch, the 64-bit compiler was emitting addvsi3 (see comment #6 by Steven). So I think we need to provide the symbol. The question would then be: should we provide real SImode addition or word_mode addition as currently? Strict backwards compatibility would imply the latter. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18665