From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48)
 id 26CF6385840C; Tue, 28 Sep 2021 08:17:53 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 26CF6385840C
From: "vincent-gcc at vinc17 dot net" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug target/102498] [9/10/11/12 Regression] Long double constant and
 non-default rounding mode on x86
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2021 08:17:52 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: target
X-Bugzilla-Version: 10.2.1
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: wrong-code
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: vincent-gcc at vinc17 dot net
X-Bugzilla-Status: ASSIGNED
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 9.5
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-102498-4-s7pm6xmaBJ@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-102498-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-102498-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-BeenThere: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Gcc-bugs mailing list <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/options/gcc-bugs>,
 <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gcc-bugs>,
 <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2021 08:17:53 -0000

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D102498

--- Comment #7 from Vincent Lef=C3=A8vre <vincent-gcc at vinc17 dot net> ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #6)
> Here is a testcase which shows it can be reproduced all the back to GCC
> 4.1.2 even:
[...]
>     f(0);
> }

OK, with "return" before "f(0);".=