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 D79D63852760; Fri, 30 Sep 2022 06:17:58 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org D79D63852760
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1664518678;
	bh=WVvP4N70NcyxhkC4C+sq8FAk3WgiI8NIYpuJPeE1+L4=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=roAyS4NRXeInj+5L+xZ/+OH7L4A/7EVx1q4JJ7z8u167V8nSe0I84H6AuYF7C8NlB
	 yzf/3yl/42StWvDowgJPgThf+soVfPet7XsaMvRU02Zn1wRJWzjeRud46rD/hUIGN4
	 YMCbr443Pt832ilaqSctZFqlDez12ZCmYCGCMRPg=
From: "amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug target/106902] [11/12/13 Regression] Program compiled with -O3
 -mfma produces different result
Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2022 06:17:56 +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: 12.2.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: 
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P2
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 11.4
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-106902-4-SHjiCj4iyW@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-106902-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-106902-4@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=3D106902

--- Comment #19 from Alexander Monakov <amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to rguenther@suse.de from comment #18)
> True - but does that catch the cases people are interested and are
> allowed by the FP contraction rules?  I'm thinking of
>=20
>  x =3D a*b + c*d + e + f;
>=20
> with -fassociative-math we can form two FMAs here?

Yes; it might be reasonable to limit the match.pd rule to
-fno-associative-math, leaving mul/adds as-is for tree-ssa-math-opts to
recombine otherwise.

>  Of course with
> strict IEEE compliance but allowed FP contraction we can only
> do FMA (a, b, c*d) + e + f, right?

I think so.

>  Does that mean -ffp-contract=3Don
> only makes sense in absence of any other -ffast-math flags?

Well, the proposal was to make -ffp-contract=3Dfast an '-ffast-math' flag, =
not
=3Don. I don't want to judge if '-ffp-contract=3Don -ffast-math' combinatio=
n is
reasonable or not, because -ffast-math by itself quite nonsensical already.=