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 15B2E385840D; Thu, 12 Jan 2023 12:26:12 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 15B2E385840D
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1673526373;
	bh=M5sI3nEZZIeHp98sxG4NcipIi7OM2kdeVoee/D5tTvI=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=Jfazivb554FsDyzoQ/VUAXdzp+4/Wck1RXarUl+UHLeSyvI+9mqRLwwZ09DzvZlkM
	 2rWZCPtL/l1DoBbMjGjRDA4qLMT+PFkm6tgMqCiaP1fCtD6hFG+qxxX0YArXitYZgd
	 139yavxU6AxjcrE2geD0L+Pcn2cXYcX+xrdxY2t0=
From: "xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/107608] [13 Regression] Failure on
 fold-overflow-1.c and pr95115.c
Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2023 12:26:12 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: tree-optimization
X-Bugzilla-Version: 13.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: missed-optimization, wrong-code
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P1
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-107608-4-2fkA3w7Xx0@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-107608-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-107608-4@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=3D107608

--- Comment #28 from Xi Ruoyao <xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #27)

> For GCC 13, I think it is important that we e.g. don't miscompile glibc
> libm, so
> the libm testsuite should be clean.  PR107967 fixed some of the failures,
> and some were claimed to be dups of this PR.  So, would be nice to test G=
CC
> with your patch on glibc + libm testsuite.

Some bugs are hidden on x86/x86_64 because glibc uses more assembly for FP =
than
oother ports.  It's better to try on RISC-V etc.

> Just
> CC=3D/path/to/patched-gcc-trunk/gcc CXX=3D/path/to/patched-gcc-trunk/g++
> ../configure --prefix=3D/usr
> CC=3D/path/to/patched-gcc-trunk/gcc CXX=3D/path/to/patched-gcc-trunk/g++ =
make -jN
> CC=3D/path/to/patched-gcc-trunk/gcc CXX=3D/path/to/patched-gcc-trunk/g++ =
make
> -jN check
> should be enough in latest glibc (and perhaps compare that to GCC 12).=