From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 93702 invoked by alias); 12 Sep 2016 22:41:24 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 93684 invoked by uid 89); 12 Sep 2016 22:41:23 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_RED autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy= X-HELO: relay1.mentorg.com Received: from relay1.mentorg.com (HELO relay1.mentorg.com) (192.94.38.131) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Mon, 12 Sep 2016 22:41:13 +0000 Received: from nat-ies.mentorg.com ([192.94.31.2] helo=svr-ies-mbx-01.mgc.mentorg.com) by relay1.mentorg.com with esmtp id 1bjZuZ-0004Wa-6E from joseph_myers@mentor.com ; Mon, 12 Sep 2016 15:41:11 -0700 Received: from digraph.polyomino.org.uk (137.202.0.87) by svr-ies-mbx-01.mgc.mentorg.com (139.181.222.1) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Mon, 12 Sep 2016 23:41:07 +0100 Received: from jsm28 (helo=localhost) by digraph.polyomino.org.uk with local-esmtp (Exim 4.86_2) (envelope-from ) id 1bjZuQ-0001ea-Vx; Mon, 12 Sep 2016 22:41:03 +0000 Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2016 22:49:00 -0000 From: Joseph Myers To: Tamar Christina CC: GCC Patches , "jakub@redhat.com" , "rguenther@suse.de" , "law@redhat.com" , nd Subject: Re: [PATCH] Optimise the fpclassify builtin to perform integer operations when possible In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (DEB 67 2015-01-07) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" X-ClientProxiedBy: svr-ies-mbx-01.mgc.mentorg.com (139.181.222.1) To svr-ies-mbx-01.mgc.mentorg.com (139.181.222.1) X-SW-Source: 2016-09/txt/msg00690.txt.bz2 Are you making endianness assumptions - specifically, does the reinterpretation as an integer require that WORDS_BIG_ENDIAN and FLOAT_WORDS_BIG_ENDIAN are the same? If so, I think that's OK (in that the only target where they aren't the same seems to be pdp11 which doesn't use IEEE formats), but probably the code should check explicitly. -- Joseph S. Myers joseph@codesourcery.com