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 295403858C3A; Wed, 28 Feb 2024 11:42:56 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 295403858C3A
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1709120576;
	bh=s39OrhFCHY8jt1ijAUEqbg5qeuen6Ysb3EwrYCgJXuA=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=EyUfRDdGjPyr5dUDLX4b16VG8+VPArjvb3CE+oNUyOTBFnJOGndnXS8vfjC6oh1FF
	 CzkZzIV2FXr2VCQxaT53yGjOISYEsg9/Tdd02QOYDgCrT5fmDrlzSZ6pp4eLzocDqn
	 JcN6EpTLyCjb+00ZVWBWK8ppMf2zoQybbnAidPyo=
From: "jsm28 at gcc dot gnu.org" <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 11:42:55 +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: jsm28 at gcc dot gnu.org
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-tBNsr61hdA@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 #6 from Joseph S. Myers <jsm28 at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Contrary to what was claimed in bug 66462, I don't think there ever was a f=
ixed
patch. Note that in bug 66462 comment 19, "June" is June 2017 but "November=
" is
November 2016 - the "November" one is the *older* one.=