From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48) id 386A53854143; Thu, 20 Jul 2023 16:23:01 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 386A53854143 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org; s=default; t=1689870181; bh=gzDDXnIBu1MSLTBL2IPjn16N5WvQeqxS76tfGzA0LzU=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=sreNBVZq7PDaQove2AY0I81uk6DrbWr5v6DVp2jlBaO23VpJ544kBZ0pq/nVJmV1x ng6sDdo/60fh+gDcpwShHEOjqszZSmH0kGr3lvc8CONYniL6tFyl+QfPCz6p5WpbLX 9CmG9VydP8g3xVeX+jpkNre3L45vuY1LRpSATmaA= From: "law at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug target/110748] RISC-V: optimize store of DF 0.0 Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2023 16:23:00 +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: 13.0 X-Bugzilla-Keywords: missed-optimization X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: law at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Status: ASSIGNED X-Bugzilla-Resolution: X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: vineetg at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: --- X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: cc Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: 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: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D110748 Jeffrey A. Law changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |law at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #5 from Jeffrey A. Law --- I'd bet it's const_0_operand not allowing CONST_DOUBLE. The question is what unintended side effects we'd have if we allowed CONST_DOUBLE 0.0 in const_0_operand.=