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 1C5F2386EC6D; Mon, 20 Apr 2020 11:47:29 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 1C5F2386EC6D
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
 s=default; t=1587383249;
 bh=GjLcFVonN8xSB8u8FzQ+Q6V0qWvRLm0aFr7itACxV/k=;
 h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
 b=mckK576eOze+LLHI6MU79qbxS2j+M/2BkhSxeA5vXb+OZ1lCnegh68GZzFt7VxZoz
 r+C+sDge2I8uJaDnHSkIFtSnVygbe/5om4mIf0wK+gTXCxqOQYTt75QUMp7AFmobSi
 i/SGxEZxz1nsyVsvmrxMOPnjCvuchRFaSUuG4OtE=
From: "z.zhanghaijian at huawei dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug rtl-optimization/94665] missed minmax optimization opportunity
 for if/else structure.
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2020 11:47:29 +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-Version: 10.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: missed-optimization
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: z.zhanghaijian at huawei dot com
X-Bugzilla-Status: RESOLVED
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: INVALID
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-94665-4-tgp3OiPPWY@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-94665-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-94665-4@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, 20 Apr 2020 11:47:29 -0000

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D94665

--- Comment #8 from z.zhanghaijian at huawei dot com <z.zhanghaijian at hua=
wei dot com> ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #7)
> Can r94 or r93 be NaN there?
>=20
> (I should build an aarch64 compiler...  takes almost a day though :-) )

Yes, r94 and r93 are function arguments, there is no limit in the example, =
it
may be NaN.=20

-funsafe-math-optimizations allow optimization assume that arguments are not
NaNs like -ffinite-math-only=EF=BC=9F=