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 28BB1385DC08; Mon,  6 Apr 2020 13:33:53 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 28BB1385DC08
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
 s=default; t=1586180033;
 bh=QFDDaAsm8/UkPAIcs1fzRz5tjaY28S+BCv6lT3svOQo=;
 h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
 b=NoonpqMSF46oZTGUUJbPnxkNOOAr1f7dJCVmVn453UfYXbfqfMwxzrP/0BMXBzfvn
 qkGo8V9Ndo8JvYxoFVBktqKpqkVKHiGhUpR4YBvVhXLDh6cclEvtDyeRP34t5RbpEk
 LVz9/FaJNvZPgG1ro61x7cVopsblOXe6b2bJ+c8o=
From: "rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug middle-end/94497] Branchless clamp in the general case gets a
 branch in a particular case ?
Date: Mon, 06 Apr 2020 13:33:53 +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: 10.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: missed-optimization
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: rguenth 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: cf_reconfirmed_on bug_status everconfirmed
Message-ID: <bug-94497-4-XL8CYppcY3@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-94497-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-94497-4@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: <http://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: <http://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gcc-bugs>,
 <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 06 Apr 2020 13:33:53 -0000

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D94497

Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Last reconfirmed|                            |2020-04-06
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |NEW
     Ever confirmed|0                           |1

--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
The issue is that our GIMPLE level if-conversion does not do the min/max
replacement because our MIN/MAX_EXPR IL elements are not IEEE conforming
with respect to NaN behavior.  There _is_ now FMIN/FMAX internal functions
which targets can support (not sure if x86 does support that named patterns)
which if-conversion could use (but it doesn't).  There's a bug about exactly
that I think.  PR88540 might be a close fit.

I do have a not working patch to address this, queued for GCC 11.=