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 B9EDF3858D1E; Mon,  9 Oct 2023 19:37:08 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org B9EDF3858D1E
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1696880228;
	bh=j5DolkzPmPX0EupKkZqJP+0kjltei1AfFqXTPwP7oQY=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=RmA0etumYPA3b5slEWbVMX4AIHD5UviaCzzHPXSz3npv1FOcFZC/06G/i7MhbiP4G
	 vw4N732Ps8BUWtE3hZ+9+16N4jFSD1aTnQT/z90PlziVD8nmGxyePWBROi8rljOC+6
	 sQjP7Yb2raFdp5CZbsjZuUQnLfRz1UDiHia+qVA8=
From: "amacleod at redhat dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/111694] [13/14 Regression] Wrong behavior for
 signbit of negative zero when optimizing
Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2023 19:37:08 +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: 13.2.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: wrong-code
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: amacleod at redhat dot com
X-Bugzilla-Status: REOPENED
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P2
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 13.3
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-111694-4-6bZidM3cQ2@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-111694-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-111694-4@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=3D111694

--- Comment #9 from Andrew Macleod <amacleod at redhat dot com> ---
(In reply to Andrew Macleod from comment #8)
> (In reply to Alexander Monakov from comment #7)
> > No backport for gcc-13 planned?
>=20
> mmm, didn't realize were we propagating floating point equivalences around
> in 13.  similar patch should work there

Testing same patch on gcc13. will let it settle on trunk for a day or two
first, then check it in if nothing shows up.    which it shouldn't :-)=