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 4DD2E3858C54; Fri, 21 Jul 2023 06:56:41 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 4DD2E3858C54
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1689922601;
	bh=FT62Ap7+nnZZ4PBqGdWbTZ5Q99yx9Jn53FdiJk3lUFE=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=qu+Vx5Sh8doldPAXQ119diH/YvN4FzZXCcCiRdgAH6fZR3uywFoqRboQh7sJ3vq+D
	 O0RaCooYXEhwIyJ3V8B+vkAwCp9CRw5dTre8TEcGA9oxVDBu3bt1LFfq6ldn8idvPK
	 XR1LN1ZcVFhlo1MrLKJ9ObXf7ZxxaX7+9D4EhkF4=
From: "rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/110755] [13/14 Regression] Wrong optimization
 of fabs on ppc64el at -O1
Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2023 06:56:41 +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: 13.1.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: needs-bisection, 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: P2
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 13.2
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: cc priority cf_gcctarget
Message-ID: <bug-110755-4-WwdilPfdXb@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-110755-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-110755-4@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=3D110755

Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org,
                   |                            |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
                   |                            |rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
           Priority|P3                          |P2
             Target|                            |powerpc64le

--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
  if (in.0_1 > 0.0)
    goto <bb 3>; [59.00%]
  else
    goto <bb 4>; [41.00%]

  <bb 3> [local count: 633507681]:
  # RANGE [frange] float [8.388608e+6 (0x0.8p+24), +Inf]
  r_8 =3D in.0_1 + 8.388608e+6;
  # RANGE [frange] float [0.0 (0x0.0p+0), +Inf]
  r_9 =3D r_8 - 8.388608e+6;
  # RANGE [frange] float [0.0 (0x0.0p+0), +Inf]
  r_10 =3D ABS_EXPR <r_9>;

looks like we mishandle signed zeros somehow.=