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 95F7A3858CD1; Mon,  9 Oct 2023 17:36:15 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 95F7A3858CD1
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1696872975;
	bh=oxi5awMaLKpoyRf6YiACZDsPFfu/q1T/qJgq3Up1rJM=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=bxbqwgP0n8mo/j7ekcjCVCcox5Z25JkUZf3Qvhsi7O44Gl3/1bBhvDsR9ofKgFzJS
	 BZbc8vBOIUsCpMLkHgLBBEpvwMPwTWo85qXpIvhEHDlUScnh7YRJBqDvrN5HLg+sca
	 p+/BudGdhpLoFxKgKA7NQQ5/1xiSnIidQKYFBy5Q=
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 17:36:09 +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: resolution bug_status
Message-ID: <bug-111694-4-dyywOqEbdx@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

Andrew Macleod <amacleod at redhat dot com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Resolution|FIXED                       |---
             Status|RESOLVED                    |REOPENED

--- Comment #8 from Andrew Macleod <amacleod at redhat dot com> ---
(In reply to Alexander Monakov from comment #7)
> No backport for gcc-13 planned?

mmm, didn't realize were we propagating floating point equivalences around =
in
13.  similar patch should work there=