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 623E23858D32; Mon, 19 Jun 2023 06:50:34 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 623E23858D32
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1687157434;
	bh=f8wMyjN5GdaOarbP12wafwDDKZrVQ9yKiGNJSyV6SSw=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=LAEoASYEzmz5QHv4hqTWuxcQCDCyrnQwd1JTzzI7jdIufl8AGy4BSWGp5ImBPmktG
	 xQzE2etFttdECLDlem4NjoYiUWH+GiGZFNtbJ6IegygqivL/aHZGXF7EXmz2cuZ1CV
	 R65AwpI8SdTDPLoRFo0tvnq2JCO4JlM2CDlAbkhg=
From: "tkisuki at tachyum dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug c/110305] Incorrect optimization with -O3 -fsignaling-nans
 -fno-signed-zeros
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2023 06:50:34 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: c
X-Bugzilla-Version: og12 (devel/omp/gcc-12)
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: 
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: tkisuki at tachyum dot com
X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED
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-110305-4-2wN9Aw1ro0@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-110305-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-110305-4@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=3D110305

--- Comment #2 from tkisuki at tachyum dot com ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> First off using signal nans but not caring about signed zeros seems a com=
bo
> that normally won't happen in real life. Did you find this by accident or
> where you testing this combo on purpose with real code you are writing. .

Thank you for reviewing. We are developing own architecture and gcc backend=
 for
it. My colleague found this case and reported it to me. So, it's more like
accidental and we don't need this fix for existing architectures, like x86 =
or
aarch64.

I just wanted to share what my colleague reported in the upstream.=