https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92768
--- Comment #13 from rguenther at suse dot de <rguenther at suse dot de> --- On December 3, 2019 4:09:12 PM GMT+01:00, "jakub at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org> wrote: >https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92768 > >--- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> --- >(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #11) >> Alternatively add another flag to operand_equal_p to say whether >> exact literal equality is asked for. > >That is fine with me. Though, as I said on IRC, it can work then by >accident, >but might break any time, e.g. won't VN if it sees with >-fno-signed-zeros: > _2 = { 0.f, 0.f, 0.f, 0.f }; > use (_2); > ... > _5 = { 0.f, -0.f, 0.f, -0.f }; > use (_5); >happily replace _5 with _2, or anything else that uses operand_equal_p >and >won't pass this new magic flag? Yes.
