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 C42933858C1F; Wed, 22 Mar 2023 13:11:10 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org C42933858C1F
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1679490670;
	bh=Seq5S8A250iOS475/psqC/QoYjKbPHDXkECZZYSXQto=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=ZwLDRKTDTfNQe5nNHR9ZUlDOF5WFJsq9kYY3eymfSfQMbwkz6FD+BM734C0BBiw6X
	 ZETRka+kHvlQrQfJlKOXo2/AkIgC866h5ljxzsYakLbavoMBI1W1KoOqL8oYsZPhpI
	 mfftocU9ZZjtxnwh0+4bOnz8WdznCezzR7OLzmXM=
From: "aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/109154] [13 regression] jump threading
 de-optimizes nested floating point comparisons
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2023 13:11:10 +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
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: aldyh 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: 13.0
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-109154-4-I4PSdzgOgh@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-109154-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-109154-4@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=3D109154

--- Comment #8 from Aldy Hernandez <aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to avieira from comment #5)
> Im slightly confused here, on entry to BB 5 we know the opposite of _1 < =
0.0
> no? if we branch to BB 5 we know !(_1 < 0.0) so we can't fold _1 <=3D 1.0=
, we
> just know that the range of _1 is >=3D 0.0 . Or am I misreading, I've not
> tried compiling myself just going off the code both of you posted here.

Sorry, I should've been more clear.

_1 is < 0.0 on entry to BB5, but only on the 4->5->?? path which is what's
being analyzed.=