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 795BF3856972; Tue, 25 Jul 2023 17:48:25 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 795BF3856972
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1690307305;
	bh=n1u6UtJe2v7XUemcvmbeeg/HbARppB+XAgVEsMwB6fk=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=bJb6x6a00PdSRHrXaX8cHuDgMr2udCKqp/r6CrMFNj3XpTc/RV3poAEKMn7Y0lIFK
	 ikGxPJwGChpdbdX1W9rCHEHgtTYbtNyuCVx9QEolawXHIeo8IE63LZOUdDnnfWzFBr
	 5p/j1RuwIUKOUMaJzKbqG5voFoqTXDCrTDL3DWCU=
From: "thiago.bauermann at linaro dot org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug target/110796] builtin_iseqsig fails some tests in
 armv8l-linux-gnueabihf
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2023 17:48:25 +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: 14.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: wrong-code
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: thiago.bauermann at linaro dot org
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-110796-4-BO2opkGVzM@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-110796-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-110796-4@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=3D110796

--- Comment #10 from Thiago Jung Bauermann <thiago.bauermann at linaro dot =
org> ---
(In reply to Francois-Xavier Coudert from comment #8)
> (In reply to Richard Earnshaw from comment #6)
> > Is the exception status supposed to be in a defined state when the test
> > runs?  Shouldn't there be a call to feclearexcept (FE_ALL_EXCEPT) at the
> > start of the test?
>=20
> Isn't the exception status guaranteed to be defined (and not signaling) w=
hen
> the program starts?
>=20
> But adding feclearexcept (FE_ALL_EXCEPT); at the beginning of main() could
> not hurt, for sure.

I tried adding feclearexcept (FE_ALL_EXCEPT); at the beginning of main() bu=
t it
didn't make a difference.=