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 77DA93858437; Thu, 10 Feb 2022 12:21:26 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 77DA93858437
From: "rguenther at suse dot de" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/24021] VRP does not work with floating points
Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2022 12:21:25 +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: 4.1.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: missed-optimization
X-Bugzilla-Severity: enhancement
X-Bugzilla-Who: rguenther at suse dot de
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: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-24021-4-We0VvcPU1j@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-24021-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-24021-4@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
X-BeenThere: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Gcc-bugs mailing list <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/options/gcc-bugs>,
 <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gcc-bugs>,
 <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2022 12:21:26 -0000

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D24021

--- Comment #17 from rguenther at suse dot de <rguenther at suse dot de> ---
On Thu, 10 Feb 2022, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:

> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D24021
>=20
> --- Comment #16 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
> But just tracking those fpclassify/signbit properties wouldn't be enough,
> because in many cases e.g. whether something can be infinite or not will =
depend
> on more precise value ranges.
> If we track just a bitmask, can the value be:
> zero
> subnormal
> normal
> infinite
> qNaN
> sNaN
> have positive signbit
> have negative signbit
> then even on simple multiplication or addition we'll need to assume from =
normal
> * normal or normal + normal that it can be infinite.  When we know that
> one operand is [-15.123 - epsilon, 23.152 + epsilon] and the other is
> [256.0 - epsilon, 512.0 + epsilon], we actually can find out the result w=
ill
> not be infinite etc.
> But sure, tracking in a bitmask the above properties in addition to some
> approximate range is useful.

Yes.  What I was trying to say is that while the value-range
propagation process should likely track actual FP value ranges it
remains to be seen whether we need to store those into the SSA name
info or whether tracking a set of flags is good enough in practice
(given that match.pd should generally not invoke ranger in
resolving mode but look at what's in SSA annotations).=