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 C3D9B3858D35; Thu, 10 Nov 2022 05:58:44 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org C3D9B3858D35
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1668059924;
	bh=bpOtwicYFg4oOaPxiK7dH1PKRbRXoJ/cbVBcl+nxRSM=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=R+iwV09IgkqrEhFhkdfksWs8Bra1OjX2CzLJ7ifaB5g0GKA8uK8HZO4VoKyncyvTh
	 L7PZxu7Z9Oe0VNtYfNzDixzMJITsUDawfR/X31Kdgx5nee+yGjw0kPipiDUTQqIhOL
	 ptYoLl+5MxdVO0BHduLsk2auiQMiNGwWNrOR+wVA=
From: "linkw at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug target/105480] Vectorized `isnan` appears to trigger FPE on
 ppc64le
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2022 05:58:42 +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: 11.2.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: wrong-code
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: linkw at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: linkw at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-105480-4-VVs4mktNQA@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-105480-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-105480-4@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
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.sourceware.org>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D105480

--- Comment #11 from Kewen Lin <linkw at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to joseph@codesourcery.com from comment #10)
> For scalar isnan see bug 66462.  (The claim in bug 66462 comment 19 that=
=20
> there was ever a working version of that patch ready to go in is=20
> incorrect: November 2016 is older than June 2017.)

Thanks for the pointer! So it's clear that the function should not set the
invalid flag for either NaN. I wonder if we should expect tree code
UNORDERED_EXPR and rtx code UNORDERED have the same semantic (will not set
invalid) since it's lowered to them accordingly. If yes, the current optimi=
zed
dump looks fine, otherwise it's undefined for tree and rtx code? I guess it
means we should lower it to something else which isn't expected to raise
exceptions instead?=