https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107046

            Bug ID: 107046
           Summary: [13 Regression] Recent FP range work causing inf-2 to
                    be miscompiled on rx-elf
           Product: gcc
           Version: 13.0
            Status: UNCONFIRMED
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P3
         Component: tree-optimization
          Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
          Reporter: jeffreyalaw at gmail dot com
  Target Milestone: ---

gcc.c-torture/execute/ieee/inf-2.c is being mis-compiled as of:

commit b7fd7fb5011106c062df9275ca8fddcbce4ebdeb
Author: Aldy Hernandez <al...@redhat.com>
Date:   Thu Sep 22 18:20:39 2022 +0200

    frange: drop endpoints to min/max representable numbers for
-ffinite-math-only.

    Similarly to how we drop NANs to UNDEFINED when -ffinite-math-only, I
    think we can drop the numbers outside of the min/max representable
    numbers to the representable number.

    This means the endpoings to VR_VARYING for -ffinite-math-only can now
    be the min/max representable, instead of -INF and +INF.

    Saturating in the setter means that the upcoming implementation for
    binary operators no longer have to worry about doing the right
    thing for -ffinite-math-only.  If the range goes outside the limits,
    it'll get chopped down.

Looking at the assembly code, test, testf and testl are all collapsing down to
calls to abort.
       .file   "k.c"
        .section P,"ax"
        .section        .text.unlikely,"ax",@progbits
        .global _test
        .type   _test, @function
_test:
        bsr     _abort
        .size   _test, .-_test
        .global _testf
        .type   _testf, @function
_testf:
        bsr     _abort
        .size   _testf, .-_testf
        .global _testl
        .type   _testl, @function
_testl:
        bsr     _abort
        .size   _testl, .-_testl
        .global _main
        .type   _main, @function
_main:
        bsr     _abort
        .size   _main, .-_main
        .ident  "GCC: (GNU) 13.0.0 20220923 (experimental)"

Reply via email to