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 8EDA13858CDA; Tue, 27 Sep 2022 09:39:57 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 8EDA13858CDA
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1664271597;
	bh=WlTJ2KBUozQ5+tHTwjNaDDLzNVK14C0RnxqmIK3ofzs=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=DU+vPatE8ACQLogrnWaba6FuVr45ulPilugJahV4hgOZsgkM+faSSr+NPnsWF7P10
	 28ucHNiqRp8+KjoD83oMrIaBQ0MwOn/oe+YfuAIE0et3ko9E4teNO8Kngtage/HTLL
	 wPV6CK38hKYGF2d6iw0JvKEq+llRY5Ja09IhGNNs=
From: "aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug testsuite/107046] [13 Regression] Recent FP range work causing
 inf-2 to be miscompiled on rx-elf
Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2022 09:39:57 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: testsuite
X-Bugzilla-Version: 13.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: testsuite-fail
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: aldyh 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: 13.0
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-107046-4-1eLXTBeiOz@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-107046-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-107046-4@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=3D107046

--- Comment #4 from Aldy Hernandez <aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #3)
> Ah, probably the
>=20
> void test(double f, double i)
> {
> ...
>   if (i !=3D __builtin_inf())
>     abort ();
>=20
> int main()
> {
>   test (34.0, __builtin_inf());
> ...
>=20
> test is "miscompiled", similar to what we see in povray.
>=20
> We can probably gate parts of the testcase with
>=20
> #if __FINITE_MATH_ONLY__ =3D=3D 0

Yeah, I saw that.  Agreed that we should predicate parts of this testcase.

Also, it seems weird that the gimple representation is inconsistent between=
 the
conditional and the call site.  Before einline we have:

void test (double f, double i)
{
  <bb 2> :
  if (i_1(D) <=3D 3.4028234663852885981170418348451692544e+38)
    goto <bb 3>; [INV]
  else
    goto <bb 4>; [INV]

  <bb 3> :
  abort ();

  <bb 4> :
  return;

}

int main ()
{
  <bb 2> :
  test (3.4e+1,  Inf);

}

Which the inliner through some unknown mechanism (to me), folds to a call to
abort in main.  This is before evrp or ethread.  I wonder how it folded that
with.  Anywho..that's neither here nor there.

What I'm concerned is that INF is being expanded differently between test a=
nd
main.  Shouldn't we at least be consistent?=