------- Comment #11 from rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-22 23:43 ------- (In reply to comment #9) > Is HONOR_NANS missing somwhere?
Not really, it is basically the same problem as the one with -0 -- for some time, ccp may believe that there might be a NaN (due to division by zero in case end were 0) even in this completely NaN-free program, and we end up changing the value of NaN in the lattice to a different constant (0). I am working on the fix. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29921
