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 C251D3858C3A; Mon,  7 Feb 2022 13:11:55 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org C251D3858C3A
From: "glisse at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/104420] New: [12 Regression] Inconsistent
 checks for X * 0.0 optimization
Date: Mon, 07 Feb 2022 13:11:55 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: new
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: tree-optimization
X-Bugzilla-Version: 12.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: wrong-code
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: glisse at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: bug_id short_desc product version bug_status
 keywords bug_severity priority component assigned_to reporter
 target_milestone
Message-ID: <bug-104420-4@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: Mon, 07 Feb 2022 13:11:55 -0000

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D104420

            Bug ID: 104420
           Summary: [12 Regression] Inconsistent checks for X * 0.0
                    optimization
           Product: gcc
           Version: 12.0
            Status: UNCONFIRMED
          Keywords: wrong-code
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P3
         Component: tree-optimization
          Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
          Reporter: glisse at gcc dot gnu.org
  Target Milestone: ---

(from a comment in PR 104389)

/* Maybe fold x * 0 to 0.  The expressions aren't the same
   when x is NaN, since x * 0 is also NaN.  Nor are they the
   same in modes with signed zeros, since multiplying a
   negative value by 0 gives -0, not +0.  Nor when x is +-Inf,
   since x * 0 is NaN.  */
(simplify
 (mult @0 real_zerop@1)
 (if (!tree_expr_maybe_nan_p (@0)
      && (!HONOR_NANS (type) || !tree_expr_maybe_infinite_p (@0))
      && !tree_expr_maybe_real_minus_zero_p (@0)
      && !tree_expr_maybe_real_minus_zero_p (@1))
  @1))

Notice how the comment talks about @0 being a "negative value" while the co=
de
says "!tree_expr_maybe_real_minus_zero_p (@0)", which is not at all the same
thing.

Because tree_expr_maybe_real_minus_zero_p is rather weak, it does not trigg=
er
so often, but still:

double f(int a){
  return a*0.;
}

is optimized to "return 0.;" whereas f(-42) should return -0.=