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 4A5953858D37; Fri,  3 Mar 2023 13:50:54 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 4A5953858D37
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1677851454;
	bh=Re8yoRyPP6YeqWI/yhldceG4InUC5SoT9sGdUc+N5hc=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=Hok8rJGIKQEEbSH+uzkA4FKaq829WSTCdo8zL3IBb/uIc6yqbWbuIY6uLf1hJEonI
	 N9qUBsvHscxyFVT+jVlC3iiFHxHjMlfbQeohYoKRtle7yRJ88osbz4ueKRyzDzLlpa
	 fiQpA7PM1uARTYOFIEZVHoFXRouj940cBVWqoKiQ=
From: "rguenth 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: Fri, 03 Mar 2023 13:50:53 +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: rguenth 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-Uzr8OGngfW@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 #11 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
I think for the reverse op I'd naiively try to compute the result as we do =
now
and then extend the range by one ulp of the input range with the largest
magnitude.

Does real_nextafter (0.0) result in a denormal?  For multiplication we have
to consider underflow, say, if

 0.0 =3D x * 1e-63;

depending on whether we represent denormals in ranges x is the range
where the operation underflows.

As said we probably have to think and document what we do for individual
operations.

We can also conservatively widen the input ranges by one
ulp, that's going to be always correct and maybe the best thing to do
for GCC 13?  It should be only necessary for the reverse operations.=