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 A13AE3858C50; Thu,  9 Feb 2023 16:19:48 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org A13AE3858C50
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1675959588;
	bh=5GKdLCYCBVtYTPvCtGB9nk+ggS73WVmtvchrX3qoTMQ=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=J0dHxXMtltizXaXBloZDsn2jcJiaxvZ+8aeklCesTdmNhYOgoPGVftkYWPxuiagYN
	 A60T8Tzi/oR/4Jnyab/7U3h4lWTSomWL8VMhCvK6h/YytswpV5MD8pH+luKSvLj5JW
	 3JY94NHAowAp/qLOl8LjKbh+17LsXUSHy9diyTOU=
From: "matz at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug target/108742] Incorrect constant folding with (or exposed by)
 -fexcess-precision=standard
Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2023 16:19:48 +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: 12.2.1
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: 
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: matz at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-108742-4-wuJaUvehCA@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-108742-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-108742-4@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=3D108742

--- Comment #3 from Michael Matz <matz at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #2)
> Note, internally in standard excess precision, 4.2 seen by the lexer is
> actually
> EXCESS_PRECISION <double, 4.2L>,

Then _that_ is the problem.  The literal "4.2" simply is not a long double
literal "4.2L".

> when it is assigned to a double variable or
> cast
> to double (i.e. in places where C/C++ require the excess precision to be
> converted to the narrower one) it is rounded to double,
> but when used as (long double)4.2 it is the same as 4.2L

I disagree.  As "4.2" is "(double)4.2" then therefore "(long double)4.2" sh=
ould
be the same as "(long double)(double)4.2".

> and even (long double)d =3D=3D (long double)4.2 should behave
> the same as (long double)d =3D=3D 4.2 and d =3D=3D 4.2.

On this we agree, all these expressions should behave the same.  But I say =
they
should _not_ behave the same as "(long double)d =3D=3D 4.2L".=