From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-375617-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 25896 invoked by alias); 2 Dec 2011 16:38:36 -0000
Received: (qmail 25842 invoked by uid 22791); 2 Dec 2011 16:38:35 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.9 required=5.0	tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from localhost (HELO gcc.gnu.org) (127.0.0.1)    by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 02 Dec 2011 16:38:22 +0000
From: "dominiq at lps dot ens.fr" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug rtl-optimization/50904] [4.7 regression] pessimization when -fno-protect-parens is enabled by -Ofast
Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2011 16:38:00 -0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: rtl-optimization
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: missed-optimization
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
X-Bugzilla-Status: ASSIGNED
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P2
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 4.7.0
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields:
Message-ID: <bug-50904-4-Af2FeZeTQQ@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-50904-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-50904-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org
X-SW-Source: 2011-12/txt/msg00183.txt.bz2

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50904

--- Comment #32 from Dominique d'Humieres <dominiq at lps dot ens.fr> 2011-12-02 16:37:37 UTC ---
> And for the sake of completeness the evaluation of sub above and
>
>    subroutine sub2(x)
>      real*8 x
>      x = (x + 2.d0**52) - 2.d0**52
>    end subroutine sub2
>
> should behave consistently if I read your Fortran standard
> quotations correctly.

According my reading of

> "Once the interpretation of a numeric intrinsic operation is established, the
> processor may evaluate any mathematically equivalent expression, provided that
> the integrity of parentheses is not violated."

this is different from

>   subroutine sub(x)
>     real*8 x, tem
>     tem = x + 2.d0**52
>     x = tem - 2.d0**52
>   end subroutine sub

where 'x=tem-2.d0**52' can be evaluated as 'x=x+2.d0**52-2.d0**52' then as 'x'
(as long as x and tmp are of the same kind(?)), while in the former case '(x +
2.d0**52) - 2.d0**52' is prohibited by the standard to be evaluated as 'x'.

Note that if I replace 'tem = x + 2.d0**52' with 'tem = (x + 2.d0**52)', I get
1.0 unless I use -fno-protect-parens.

All this has been discussed previously, but the only pr I have been to find is
pr32172.