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 B74F3385842A; Fri, 23 Feb 2024 13:35:19 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org B74F3385842A
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1708695319;
	bh=k1nl//cvqUabVNhJpK1rQpvHAlOdIvDmKYRN9OriHn8=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=jVo2OzJ/nxJJUc/hzUF/rmvQkDVxZESLgIlHN3e3Vg8qvE1eitjfpOJuCX8BWP3ei
	 F/FexMgPzTjwRVmzvDjhmwnxpzSHHOqXo1qARSKPH25eD4O2jwQjVRo8yt+2/DbpuB
	 5qaUlxM4jrvRuJicZL7XXmaWpjKoMYebYsv0A204=
From: "jchrist at linux dot ibm.com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/114075] [14 Regression] s390x miscompilation
 since r14-322
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2024 13:35:18 +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: 14.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: 
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: jchrist at linux dot ibm.com
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P1
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 14.0
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-114075-4-vatmlJsWtA@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-114075-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-114075-4@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=3D114075

--- Comment #4 from jchrist at linux dot ibm.com ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #2)
> Ah, there is
> https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-February/645928.html
> but that didn't come up with a testcase.
> Not sure if checking FLOAT_MODE_P is the right thing, whether it wouldn't=
 be
> better to check !ANY_INTEGRAL_TYPE_P (vectype) or !INTEGRAL_TYPE_P
> (TREE_TYPE (vectype)).

Hi,

yes, that patch was designed to fix this problem.  But thinking about it, I
guess your second suggestion would be better.=