From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23770 invoked by alias); 1 Mar 2003 14:46:00 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-prs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-prs-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 23756 invoked by uid 71); 1 Mar 2003 14:46:00 -0000 Date: Sat, 01 Mar 2003 14:46:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20030301144600.23755.qmail@sources.redhat.com> To: nobody@gcc.gnu.org Cc: gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org, From: Steven Bosscher Subject: Re: middle-end/7198: ia64.md missing usual fnma patterns Reply-To: Steven Bosscher X-SW-Source: 2003-03/txt/msg00021.txt.bz2 List-Id: The following reply was made to PR target/7198; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Steven Bosscher To: tprince@computer.org Cc: gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org, nobody@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: middle-end/7198: ia64.md missing usual fnma patterns Date: 01 Mar 2003 15:44:36 +0100 Op za 01-03-2003, om 15:28 schreef Tim Prince: > On Saturday 01 March 2003 04:01, Steven Bosscher wrote: > > http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/gnatsweb.pl?cmd=view%20audit-trail&database=gcc& > >pr=7198 > > > > Does this bug still exist in the 3.3 branch and mainline? It looks like > > the patterns from your patch are already in ia64.md. > That's interesting; I don't find them in the gcc-20030224 (3.3) snapshot. In > fact, I just checked this week, and that snapshot was not employing fnma > instructions in my test code, so I applied this patch again. The patterns > which came in ia64.md require a sign change, to match the more common source > code pattern, so it seems that a pattern with the sign change already applied > is needed. Ah, you're right, I overlooked the "neg:[SDT]F" part" in ia64.md.