https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107608
--- Comment #50 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Fri, 27 Jan 2023, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107608
>
> --- Comment #49 from Jakub Jelinek ---
> (In reply to rguent...@suse.de from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107608
--- Comment #49 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #47)
> > Glibc already changed the code from Inf/Inf to (x - x) / (x - x) where x
(x - x) / (x - x) is 0 / 0, not Inf / Inf.
Anyway, for frange potential in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107608
--- Comment #48 from Xi Ruoyao ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #47)
> On Fri, 27 Jan 2023, xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107608
> >
> > --- Comment #46 from Xi Ruoyao ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107608
--- Comment #47 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Fri, 27 Jan 2023, xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107608
>
> --- Comment #46 from Xi Ruoyao ---
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107608
--- Comment #46 from Xi Ruoyao ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #45)
> (In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #44)
> > (In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #43)
> > > If the result is unused then no, GCC will happily elide
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107608
--- Comment #45 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #44)
> (In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #43)
> > On Thu, 19 Jan 2023, xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> >
> > >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107608
--- Comment #44 from Xi Ruoyao ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #43)
> On Thu, 19 Jan 2023, xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107608
> >
> > --- Comment #42 from Xi Ruoyao ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107608
--- Comment #43 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Thu, 19 Jan 2023, xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107608
>
> --- Comment #42 from Xi Ruoyao ---
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107608
--- Comment #42 from Xi Ruoyao ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #41)
> We could fix the testcase with
>
> diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr95115.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr95115.c
> index 69c4f83250c..09273e445d2 100644
> ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107608
--- Comment #41 from Richard Biener ---
We could fix the testcase with
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr95115.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr95115.c
index 69c4f83250c..09273e445d2 100644
--- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr95115.c
+++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107608
--- Comment #40 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #39)
> But I still see
>
> FAIL: gcc.dg/pr95115.c execution test
>
> as of r13-5237-gaaf29ae6cdbaad
That's removing the use of
_3 = Inf / Inf;
(probably
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107608
--- Comment #39 from Richard Biener ---
But I still see
FAIL: gcc.dg/pr95115.c execution test
as of r13-5237-gaaf29ae6cdbaad
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107608
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107608
--- Comment #37 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I guess so. But we should look at the glibc math failures/PR106805.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107608
--- Comment #36 from Aldy Hernandez ---
Can we close this PR?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107608
--- Comment #35 from Florian Weimer ---
I backported the fixes for building glibc to 2.34 last week, I really expect
the testsuite to be clean there (on x86-64), and on later releases as well.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107608
--- Comment #34 from Romain Geissler ---
>From what I wrote here
https://sourceware.org/pipermail/libc-alpha/2022-November/143633.html
apparently I already tried gcc 12 back in end of november 2022 and all float
issues in glibc testsuite were
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107608
--- Comment #33 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Isn't that PR106805 ? More importantly, do those FAIL also with GCC 12 or just
the trunk?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107608
--- Comment #32 from Romain Geissler ---
Hi,
Thanks for the fix, indeed it has fixed quite some glibc maths tests ;)
FYI, most likely it's totally unrelated to this bug, for right now with latest
gcc trunk and glibc trunk on x86-64, I still
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107608
--- Comment #31 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Aldy Hernandez :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:844190af178c210a6aff6b7eb4dd8c6a49210ff9
commit r13-5179-g844190af178c210a6aff6b7eb4dd8c6a49210ff9
Author: Aldy Hernandez
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107608
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #54253|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107608
--- Comment #29 from Aldy Hernandez ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #27)
> "elide an overflow" should be probably "elide an overflow or division by
> zero" I think,
> because finite / 0.0 returns infinity and raises FE_DIVBYZERO
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107608
--- Comment #28 from Xi Ruoyao ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #27)
> For GCC 13, I think it is important that we e.g. don't miscompile glibc
> libm, so
> the libm testsuite should be clean. PR107967 fixed some of the failures,
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107608
--- Comment #27 from Jakub Jelinek ---
"elide an overflow" should be probably "elide an overflow or division by zero"
I think,
because finite / 0.0 returns infinity and raises FE_DIVBYZERO rather than
FE_OVERFLOW,
even when it returns infinity
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107608
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #54224|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107608
--- Comment #25 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Aldy Hernandez from comment #22)
> Note that we currently can't represent +-inf or +-max, as we only have two
> endpoints. So that would just be represented as VARYING.
By +-inf I meant
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107608
--- Comment #24 from Aldy Hernandez ---
(In reply to Andrew Macleod from comment #21)
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #13)
>
> > Yes, the fact that ranger doesn't operate as a usual propagator with a
> > lattice
> > makes things
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107608
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jsm28 at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107608
--- Comment #22 from Aldy Hernandez ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #20)
> (In reply to Aldy Hernandez from comment #16)
> > Created attachment 54224 [details]
> > untested patch
> >
> > Perhaps this would work. It solves the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107608
--- Comment #21 from Andrew Macleod ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #13)
> Yes, the fact that ranger doesn't operate as a usual propagator with a
> lattice
> makes things very difficult here. Note that my comment referred to code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107608
--- Comment #20 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Aldy Hernandez from comment #16)
> Created attachment 54224 [details]
> untested patch
>
> Perhaps this would work. It solves the testcase, though I think we should
> probably audit the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107608
--- Comment #19 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Tue, 10 Jan 2023, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107608
>
> --- Comment #18 from Jakub Jelinek ---
> See #c10, I think even with comparisons
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107608
--- Comment #18 from Jakub Jelinek ---
See #c10, I think even with comparisons we need to be careful. One thing is
whether we can prove one of the branches will be unreachable, we can do that
and replace that branch with __builtin_unreachable,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107608
--- Comment #17 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Aldy Hernandez from comment #16)
> Created attachment 54224 [details]
> untested patch
>
> Perhaps this would work. It solves the testcase, though I think we should
> probably audit the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107608
--- Comment #16 from Aldy Hernandez ---
Created attachment 54224
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=54224=edit
untested patch
Perhaps this would work. It solves the testcase, though I think we should
probably audit the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107608
--- Comment #15 from Aldy Hernandez ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #13)
> Note that the constant folding routines generally refrain from folding
> when that loses exceptions, it's just ranger when producing singleton
> ranges and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107608
--- Comment #14 from Richard Biener ---
const_binop has
/* Don't constant fold this floating point operation if
the result has overflowed and flag_trapping_math. */
if (flag_trapping_math
&& MODE_HAS_INFINITIES
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107608
--- Comment #13 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Aldy Hernandez from comment #12)
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #6)
> > (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #0)
> > > ... but then
> > > comes dom2 and happily replaces
> > >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107608
--- Comment #12 from Aldy Hernandez ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #6)
> (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #0)
> > ... but then
> > comes dom2 and happily replaces
> > _1 = 3.4028234663852885981170418348451692544e+38 *
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107608
--- Comment #11 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #10)
> Some extra food for thought:
> void bar (void);
>
> void
> foo (double x)
> {
> if (x >= -16.0 && x <= 16.0)
> {
> double y = x + 32.0;
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107608
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Some extra food for thought:
void bar (void);
void
foo (double x)
{
if (x >= -16.0 && x <= 16.0)
{
double y = x + 32.0;
double z = y * 42.5;
if (z < 600.0 || z > 3000.0)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107608
--- Comment #9 from Aldy Hernandez ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #8)
> (In reply to Aldy Hernandez from comment #7)
> > (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #6)
> > > (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #0)
> > > > ...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107608
--- Comment #8 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Aldy Hernandez from comment #7)
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #6)
> > (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #0)
> > > ... but then
> > > comes dom2 and happily replaces
> > >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107608
--- Comment #7 from Aldy Hernandez ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #6)
> (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #0)
> > ... but then
> > comes dom2 and happily replaces
> > _1 = 3.4028234663852885981170418348451692544e+38 *
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107608
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
--- Comment #6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107608
--- Comment #5 from Xi Ruoyao ---
After r13-3924 this brings PR95115 back. Note that Glibc has added an ugly
hack for RISC-V and old compilers, but other ports may be haunted as well.
46 matches
Mail list logo
