On Fri, Aug 7, 2026 at 2:57 AM Roger Sayle <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > From: Alexander Monakov <[email protected]> > > Sent: 07 August 2026 08:45 > > On Wed, 5 Aug 2026, Roger Sayle wrote: > > > > > gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog > > > PR tree-optimization/126467 > > > * gcc.dg/pr126467-1.c: New test case. > > > * gcc.dg/pr126467-2.c: Likewise. > > > * gcc.dg/pr96392.c: Fix incorrect test case. > > > > Sorry, what is incorrect in this testcase? x is an int there: > > > > -double negate(int x) > > -{ > > - return 0.0 - x; > > -} > > Hi Alexander, > Yes, x is an int, so when promoted to double (because of the 0.0) > it becomes +0.0, and as described +0.0 - +0.0 is not the same > as -(double)0. Interestingly, I ran "git blame" to figure out which > misguided fool wrote this test case... It turns out it was me. > Live and learn. > > Short answer, this test case now fails with this (any) fix > for PR tree-optimization/126467.
That is until finalized ranger support is hooked up to say int->fp conversion does not produce -0.0. This is being worked on. Can you add a separate testcase and xfail currently? Thanks, Andrea > > Thanks for your help/feedback. > Roger > -- > >
