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 7A9AD3858C00; Fri, 27 Jan 2023 07:59:57 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 7A9AD3858C00
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1674806397;
	bh=Twl+fvUa0yPgBk+gcZaZatMtTTT+u6NtObe34/z1B1M=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=wTTZCKRSqjIFmQZmWFDRF4gwzbG6ZdnqpipBTwZGA4p6y6Tomo1E3a3sj75AjYRbG
	 3qL8HpERn+AIzh8uPZOG+nqRYtNTGdN0VvVShZ+WypJ3sh6jSVvW+LTEgwDuhutSE7
	 BcBpr8RMHVae6p9VOBVRnRFdbYP+Ks1qp3WA7f1Q=
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: Fri, 27 Jan 2023 07:59:56 +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: RESOLVED
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: FIXED
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-A0lqXWDp7l@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 #46 from Xi Ruoyao <xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #45)
> (In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #44)
> > (In reply to rguenther@suse.de from comment #43)

> > > If the result is unused then no, GCC will happily elide exceptions fr=
om
> > > unused computations like Inexact from the statement
> > >=20
> > >  1./3.;
> > >=20
> > > but this has been done before.  What's new is that GCC can now elide
> > > some uses (in this case the isnan check is the only use)
> >=20
> > The should we just change PR95115 to "INVALID" and remove the test case=
, and
> > fix any regression on Glibc side?
>=20
> I think we should adjust the testcase with a volatile like I suggested ab=
ove
> so we verify that we don't eliminate the computation with a "constant" Na=
N.

Ok, I'll post a patch.

Glibc already changed the code from Inf/Inf to (x - x) / (x - x) where x is=
 not
a constant, but I'm wandering if the compiler will attempt to optimize out =
(x -
x) / (x - x) later...  Is it possible to provide a "__builtin_feraiseexcept=
" so
we'd be able to use it instead of the nasty (x - x) / (x - x) to raise the
exception?=