From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48) id C946F3858403; Fri, 22 Mar 2024 17:09:14 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org C946F3858403 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org; s=default; t=1711127354; bh=+0FgqWYz1KjDVcMbcEOZuZv9kLSmnvW3Yc/VUjvvvrU=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=mj+5bpnWrW5qK/qedWebXuQGsijbPcb747WgQP82PU+iHPEP0nXAw3J0qHmHqIZMs 6/UtDXxgxNaCEXoSHFypv4G9W80HmCgO/0AVzEAgl+FR8k74vGO3ZudleBzCoNBG8y ZPVUkgUjMMQLQ8e8CaUeYicMMH6AsKjLf2jA/qmU= From: "jakub at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug middle-end/111655] [11/12/13/14 Regression] wrong code generated for __builtin_signbit and 0./0. on x86-64 -O2 Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2024 17:09:13 +0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: middle-end X-Bugzilla-Version: 13.2.1 X-Bugzilla-Keywords: wrong-code X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: jakub 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: 11.5 X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: priority 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=3D111655 Jakub Jelinek changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Priority|P1 |P2 --- Comment #15 from Jakub Jelinek --- I don't think a 9+ years old bug should be a P1. It would be nice to get it fixed, but I'm not sure it is feasible for GCC 14 and very unlikely backportable if we e.g. have to split the *nonnegative* predicates to 2 set= s.=