From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.129.124]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2C7E13858291 for ; Sun, 13 Nov 2022 15:56:57 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org 2C7E13858291 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=redhat.com DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1668355016; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding; bh=KKe24gCoCTz4xCqWOuN1ggBN1Evx2HK3RIw4NVpONj0=; b=glp55SQ0dvYQu9qGNV4IyMGX6adUIrbdQGxCUpVDGXjogI04htGulLtLcgutF5t8C1mNU+ Qy7COU5W7SalirZ/j9beNUVrspdlokzKsw4GmPU9A4xp81l+1K8cscQfR4UFXTPODUCEGW 0lGjcf7UCCAXUJSEIVY+HFtHx4PLFdk= Received: from mail-wm1-f69.google.com (mail-wm1-f69.google.com [209.85.128.69]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.3, cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id us-mta-551-Tn2van1TNy60lp8GgYkQkA-1; Sun, 13 Nov 2022 10:56:55 -0500 X-MC-Unique: Tn2van1TNy60lp8GgYkQkA-1 Received: by mail-wm1-f69.google.com with SMTP id i9-20020a1c3b09000000b003cfbaa32cfdso2601417wma.2 for ; Sun, 13 Nov 2022 07:56:55 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=content-transfer-encoding:subject:from:cc:to:content-language :user-agent:mime-version:date:message-id:x-gm-message-state:from:to :cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=KKe24gCoCTz4xCqWOuN1ggBN1Evx2HK3RIw4NVpONj0=; b=1rMiF06RI1EaZ5rn3qPdFMfXXDoz9sjVMDB4QHWDr26PM+MnPwNoU9FWHMkc7dSH/F vPWT3hEjg8KtGCNE5n2nmadIykGpsNzZ3GIbRJB+80Cvsed36SgjVO1adLzRW+Ia1lPI vl0TielayJ6pqA7A34Kj6yYkdTiXRjOXV3b16EudpoNdl6Tl9d78DzRZZ9btpzWWPdM2 Chj9p43KMQgnOcIUJCOoRbuSfch4Tbd+4gob1K9SaZYTFWS+lDrA0qUROEuv6UfJwsnA j4prSDzf1OgbvWYVDYMte8uZ/tj4U2BdDR6UzQuh7b4/eLROybaD868RxsRky8bGJBHO AqDQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ANoB5pkCtwtC/SFvIAzfCNtSJjIyiztRi1hYQG/qwXhCpfO87tg94Yff Gu+HERSlksWgx57aZLXoZcUTpW3qEPj8EVPXv4TfJKoNU68zwHpzXxRs1vNgTJwAJpXbGZYA+85 MVqAB5BU= X-Received: by 2002:a5d:5945:0:b0:22e:3981:35fd with SMTP id e5-20020a5d5945000000b0022e398135fdmr5348364wri.548.1668355014034; Sun, 13 Nov 2022 07:56:54 -0800 (PST) X-Google-Smtp-Source: AA0mqf5w/H3Fyrq7WPx/VX9YTgdnHukO4PzeufFXrIPTqKP4W0gHKmVuCtK3q02gUIfkxNSf+kc8Pw== X-Received: by 2002:a5d:5945:0:b0:22e:3981:35fd with SMTP id e5-20020a5d5945000000b0022e398135fdmr5348356wri.548.1668355013777; Sun, 13 Nov 2022 07:56:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.1.2] ([139.47.33.22]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id n16-20020a05600c4f9000b003cfd64b6be1sm6778093wmq.27.2022.11.13.07.56.51 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Sun, 13 Nov 2022 07:56:52 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <2afa474d-79a0-c978-f881-bd71f8016585@redhat.com> Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2022 16:56:50 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.4.1 To: Jakub Jelinek Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org, amacleod@redhat.com From: Aldy Hernandez Subject: are most floating point cases in tree_call_nonnegative_warnv_p() wrong for HONOR_NANS? X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Language: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_NONE,TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org List-Id: Based on discussions in the last few weeks, aren't most of the cases in tree_call_nonnegative_warnv_p() wrong when honoring NANS? For example: CASE_CFN_ACOS: CASE_CFN_ACOS_FN: CASE_CFN_ACOSH: CASE_CFN_ACOSH_FN: ... ... /* Always true. */ return true; But are we guaranteed a +NAN for any NAN input? I thought we were only guaranteed the NAN sign for abs, copysign, assignment, etc? Similarly for most other cases in this function. Hmmm. I really think a good chunk of fold-const.cc should live in range-ops. It seems we're duplicating a lot of functionality. Similarly to bit-CCP as I've mentioned. Aldy