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 CB48F3858283; Sat,  1 Jun 2024 09:34:14 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org CB48F3858283
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1717234454;
	bh=hNVIdBpeFp3YZFiHPZvv81LgkThNuEBtLKY0zK27pJs=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=UQhe76fRsDwlcy5xRbrUjGlHDdZjYMLojuw3XsFedm8IeqQOwFnxQbbp5ddsLZioF
	 fKUCPv+FEzziUcdrITuchoYhZk5iYzAijZrHW0gzfnuLqJJS0rYUkkwhtXEgq+mpRB
	 Vrhdpja/8THjBzQK/KTS5ooaDcm8DEcRkCJVp6q8=
From: "gjl at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/115307] [avr] Don't expand isinf() like a
 built-in
Date: Sat, 01 Jun 2024 09:34:14 +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: missed-optimization
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: gjl at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P4
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-115307-4-FdLwNxwKyt@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-115307-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-115307-4@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=3D115307

--- Comment #5 from Georg-Johann Lay <gjl at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> The issue is that we probably fold isinff early.  On x86 I see already in
> .original:
>=20
>   return !(ABS_EXPR <f> u<=3D 3.4028234663852885981170418348451692544e+38=
);

That looks incorrect.  The man 3 page for isinf states that it returns -1 f=
or
-Inf, but that expression returns 1 for -Inf (same for the expanded avr code
above).=