From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48) id 2A5583858C39; Fri, 13 Jan 2023 13:19:29 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 2A5583858C39 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org; s=default; t=1673615969; bh=avbSLDItSyfIK4UxHVJ5FLJ56kdaEkhKv6i4w0A9Z2w=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=FIDmvD1fEmxzWi6Hv2C0dGs2VHQxbqnvRzy86teBceXKZY86vZRgxG4y2sh7dql6B ukKpl05Je4Hj3UMTVTXRUBg9t+/+Y/zKQq9KXcjLnHg14bjZ5QDeescmiGmeNcoN7u Ov/MBvowQ9KzBwvZ1aTveWQbwt0/e7JAFCp44QEQ= From: "aldyh at gcc dot 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, 13 Jan 2023 13:19:26 +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: aldyh 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: In-Reply-To: References: 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: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D107608 --- Comment #29 from Aldy Hernandez --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #27) > "elide an overflow" should be probably "elide an overflow or division by > zero" I think, > because finite / 0.0 returns infinity and raises FE_DIVBYZERO rather than > FE_OVERFLOW, > even when it returns infinity from finite operands. > Seems for infinity / 0.0 no exception is raised, so the finite operands > infinite result condition seems to be sufficient. Fixed. >=20 > 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. > 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). I ran tests on glibc from git sources and compared the tests.sum files left behind from a "make check -k -jN". There don't seem to be any regressions.= =20 For that matter, it looks like a handful of tests get fixed by the proposed patch: -FAIL: math/test-double-lgamma -FAIL: math/test-double-log1p -FAIL: math/test-float-lgamma -FAIL: math/test-float-log1p -FAIL: math/test-float128-catan -FAIL: math/test-float128-catanh -FAIL: math/test-float128-lgamma -FAIL: math/test-float128-log -FAIL: math/test-float128-log1p -FAIL: math/test-float128-y0 -FAIL: math/test-float128-y1 -FAIL: math/test-float32-lgamma -FAIL: math/test-float32-log1p -FAIL: math/test-float32x-lgamma -FAIL: math/test-float32x-log1p -FAIL: math/test-float64-lgamma -FAIL: math/test-float64-log1p -FAIL: math/test-float64x-lgamma -FAIL: math/test-ldouble-lgamma=