------- Additional Comments From Thomas dot Koenig at online dot de 2005-03-01 21:26 ------- (In reply to comment #18)
> > <L2>:; > > D.2390 = 0.0 / SR.22; > > D.2392 = SR.22 + D.2390 * 0.0; > > c$real = (D.2371 + D.2372 * D.2390) / D.2392; > > c$imag = (D.2372 - D.2371 * D.2390) / D.2392; > > > > in *.t65.optimized for the simple test case with -O1 and -O3. As you > > have stated, this is independent of PR 20139. > > Yes that code is correct. as 0.0/SR.22 is not 0.0 if SR.22 is NAN. > and 0.0 * D.2390 is not 0.0 if D.2390 is NAN. Ok, then I have misunderstood you - you were referring to the results with -ffast-math. However, there still is a missed optimization here. If SR.22 is NaN, then the proposed simplification c$real = D.2371 / SR.22; c$imag = D.2372 / SR.22 would still yield NaN for c$real and c$imag, which is correct. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19953
