From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 85052 invoked by alias); 16 Jun 2015 13:26:45 -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 85042 invoked by uid 89); 16 Jun 2015 13:26:44 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,UNPARSEABLE_RELAY autolearn=no version=3.3.2 X-HELO: cvs.linux-mips.org Received: from eddie.linux-mips.org (HELO cvs.linux-mips.org) (148.251.95.138) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Tue, 16 Jun 2015 13:26:43 +0000 Received: (from localhost user: 'macro', uid#1010) by eddie.linux-mips.org with ESMTP id S27008646AbbFPN0kyLIlH (ORCPT ); Tue, 16 Jun 2015 15:26:40 +0200 Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2015 13:28:00 -0000 From: "Maciej W. Rozycki" To: Joseph Myers cc: Steve Ellcey , Richard Sandiford , gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, Catherine Moore , Matthew Fortune Subject: Re: [Patch, MIPS] Enable fp-contract on MIPS and update -mfused-madd In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <4c25620c-546c-40ae-b330-3652fe25f791@BAMAIL02.ba.imgtec.org> User-Agent: Alpine 2.11 (LFD 23 2013-08-11) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2015-06/txt/msg01123.txt.bz2 On Tue, 16 Jun 2015, Joseph Myers wrote: > > Furthermore these checks were deliberately introduced by Richard with his > > proposal here > > and agreed upon in the discussion even before IEEE Std 754-2008 has been > > made. Are you suggesting that the arguments used there, that have led to > > the current arrangement, no longer stand and consequently the HONOR_NANS > > checks introduced are now best dropped? > > Only the checks for abs and neg patterns are necessary, not those for > fused operations. And neither for the unfused combined operations we handle for some MIPS processors that implement them presumably? In that case I think the HONOR_NANS checks will best be globally removed first (where applicable of course), with a separate preparatory change. Maciej