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 C65903858298; Wed,  8 Mar 2023 20:02:26 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org C65903858298
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1678305746;
	bh=GnNAl3lliVTocHPUv1LDcHHEbKijXXyCEvW/E0iHk60=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=Gn/BoVm2dRwY1b+MdiM5OarIh1X5mVB4do14Q58J59w/vSY44goLwB5X0iXirPCxj
	 fgu/tt9SOyqAncUBnhy0VoYhp4zaCnNEql9YILHopLREf8LgBZYc4pzm+m7AqljwUE
	 yIr0COohrkjhr158EGUME+yOBXVwoUxKxEEP3+WA=
From: "jakub at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/109008] [13 Regression] Wrong code in scipy
 package since r13-3926-gd4c2f1d376da6f
Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2023 20:02:26 +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: wrong-code
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: jakub 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-109008-4-QAsQzAnGYs@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-109008-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-109008-4@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=3D109008

--- Comment #38 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
I've also repeated the testing with the above generator generated testcase =
with
" - " replaced with " / " and " + " with " * ", with #c32 + #c33 patches th=
is
resulted
in
      1 15 50
      1 17 50
      1 18 50
      1 23 50
      1 29 50
      1 32 50
      1 50 14
      1 50 18
      1 50 33
      1 50 35
      2 11 50
      2 13 50
      2 50 12
      2 50 8
      2 7 50
      3 50 10
      3 9 50
      4 50 6
      4 50 9
      4 6 50
      5 10 50
      5 8 50
      6 50 7
      9 5 50
     10 4 50
     10 50 4
     12 50 5
     28 3 50
     45 50 3
    171 50 2
    194 2 50
    366 1 50
    411 50 1
   8744 50 50
  33627 2 2
  45607 1 2
  52776 1 1
  70436 2 1
  85436 -1 -1
so again, seems at least for the 297936 tests with finite ranges it is
conservatively correct and while it still has various 50+ulps cases, in most
cases it is within an ulp or two from the minimal range.
If we find some important issue where it is too conservative, we can deal w=
ith
it incrementally.=