From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from esa2.mentor.iphmx.com (esa2.mentor.iphmx.com [68.232.141.98]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 11FC63858C52; Thu, 1 Sep 2022 15:21:26 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org 11FC63858C52 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=codesourcery.com Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=mentor.com X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.93,281,1654588800"; d="scan'208";a="82393902" Received: from orw-gwy-02-in.mentorg.com ([192.94.38.167]) by esa2.mentor.iphmx.com with ESMTP; 01 Sep 2022 07:21:25 -0800 IronPort-SDR: Wom1E9cp/wWj6ekS6QtavI1tJ4OIlvfsM6CWonlyZ9J5k9PlI8j5X+8Hrqd9THucjN7ppbwR4k Y6iqUSWZcyd+l/FjgYeCwztPas31wbyL0Nw1jevNPsnIL8xRj48g3Oa6wgwc8Of/OvTt9zON+X 5QDdQ4ywvnOOQL2aIYg5ITbi4vKw8OOWzv4BVnIK8oSMf8krt/ZM/cSGV5/YGLoh80qOkGfgH+ MXMohFVFatWVwcPhJZILn0WWwqfcYoqaFezlx+riSG9jWUsRzunJT0TNqliSh2eip5bxg9usFZ ZQs= Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2022 15:21:21 +0000 From: Joseph Myers X-X-Sender: jsm28@digraph.polyomino.org.uk To: FX CC: Jakub Jelinek , , FX via Fortran Subject: Re: Floating-point comparisons in the middle-end In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <8C6DDAA3-A40F-47C7-BE78-D56A3EC70C71@gmail.com> <3BD50DD7-5C9E-42CB-992C-A66584411A4F@gmail.com> User-Agent: Alpine 2.22 (DEB 394 2020-01-19) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" X-Originating-IP: [137.202.0.90] X-ClientProxiedBy: svr-ies-mbx-11.mgc.mentorg.com (139.181.222.11) To svr-ies-mbx-10.mgc.mentorg.com (139.181.222.10) X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3111.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,KAM_DMARC_STATUS,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS,TXREP,T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org List-Id: On Thu, 1 Sep 2022, FX via Gcc wrote: > A tentative patch is attached, it seems to work well on simple examples, > but for test coverage the hard part is going to be that the comparisons > seem to be optimised away very easily into their non-signaling versions. > Basically, if I do: Presumably that can be reproduced without depending on the new built-in function? In which case it's an existing bug somewhere in the optimizers. -- Joseph S. Myers joseph@codesourcery.com