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 22B04385B805; Mon,  5 Sep 2022 13:48:17 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 22B04385B805
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1662385697;
	bh=LAM6UZ4pxYii7gXEfJifZO92CgCNkZAC62C1fYtrvko=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=oa8ckF111ihPwWZVTSzo+wlL9vHRmEhBYAgzNwrz7+N2dbq+qF1Wgg25oCF+Cd7P3
	 qLxxSgwgWWmYRCOWT8WVpbmECgMLIn1AnRChtiFIU4M3EL+t3Ei6Nd4t1V14/mRrDG
	 sikTnnIJNq0unXzuomqr7153KOpTJl/CjF7h+i40=
From: "jakub at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug middle-end/106831] [13 Regression] mpfr-4.1.0 started failing 2
 tests: tget_set_d64 and tget_set_d128
Date: Mon, 05 Sep 2022 13:48:16 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: middle-end
X-Bugzilla-Version: 13.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: 
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 13.0
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-106831-4-cG4vX19sse@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-106831-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-106831-4@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=3D106831

--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
I guess disabling them at least for now could be fine.
If somebody involved with dfp wants to extend it for dfp, it can be done
incrementally.

BTW, thinking further about the singletons, I wonder if MODE_COMPOSITE_P
don't have similar problems.  For the case where the values are exactly equ=
al
to their MSB (i.e. the __ibm128 value is equal to that value cast to double=
 and
back), then the low part can be either +0.0 or -0.0.  Ditto for +Inf and -I=
nf.
So there can be quite a few non-singleton values.
libgcc/config/rs6000/ibm-ldouble-format describes it.=