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 237F53858CD1; Wed, 28 Feb 2024 22:19:33 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 237F53858CD1
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1709158773;
	bh=BU9cgDvPuV4JR5PW2L/0WEs8l7+AfLG6eHaIsmp1y/E=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=c6s2xwbFDjtSs9kZD+ubwk5+NAYJ9UKp4yF8dv9dgX3fDbfB3wS8L+d01jy8rAsQy
	 yFtG5SIP50QmQS7PUUTc9YWfwPS89xgA9PXMcYnIa+6mwUHNd+EHgNtDtbjDqdI/1z
	 UaYXCPtz1eVdLf3mGR5hTJdtoVs84Clbfq1UrYKI=
From: "harald at gigawatt dot nl" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug middle-end/94083] inefficient soft-float x!=Inf code
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2024 22:19:32 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: middle-end
X-Bugzilla-Version: 9.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: missed-optimization
X-Bugzilla-Severity: enhancement
X-Bugzilla-Who: harald at gigawatt dot nl
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-94083-4-pZSleQYkzO@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-94083-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-94083-4@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=3D94083

--- Comment #7 from Harald van Dijk <harald at gigawatt dot nl> ---
(In reply to Joseph S. Myers from comment #6)
> Contrary to what was claimed in bug 66462, I don't think there ever was a
> fixed patch. Note that in bug 66462 comment 19, "June" is June 2017 but
> "November" is November 2016 - the "November" one is the *older* one.

Ah, sorry, I misunderstood the situation. According to
<https://gcc.gnu.org/legacy-ml/gcc-patches/2017-08/msg01630.html> the earli=
er
version of that patch (the November 2016 one) was the one that did not have=
 the
problems that caused it to be reverted. In response to review of that, big
changes were requested and in the process bugs were introduced. The buggy
version was then committed and reverted. The original version that did not =
have
those bugs could still be committed if a re-review, taking into account the
bugs that the rework introduced, would now see it as acceptable.=