[Bug tree-optimization/107608] [13 Regression] Failure on fold-overflow-1.c and pr95115.c
xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org
Fri Jan 27 07:59:56 GMT 2023
--- Comment #46 from Xi Ruoyao <xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #45)
> (In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #44)
> > (In reply to firstname.lastname@example.org from comment #43)
> > > If the result is unused then no, GCC will happily elide exceptions from
> > > unused computations like Inexact from the statement
> > >
> > > 1./3.;
> > >
> > > but this has been done before. What's new is that GCC can now elide
> > > some uses (in this case the isnan check is the only use)
> > The should we just change PR95115 to "INVALID" and remove the test case, and
> > fix any regression on Glibc side?
> I think we should adjust the testcase with a volatile like I suggested above
> so we verify that we don't eliminate the computation with a "constant" NaN.
Ok, I'll post a patch.
Glibc already changed the code from Inf/Inf to (x - x) / (x - x) where x is not
a constant, but I'm wandering if the compiler will attempt to optimize out (x -
x) / (x - x) later... Is it possible to provide a "__builtin_feraiseexcept" so
we'd be able to use it instead of the nasty (x - x) / (x - x) to raise the
More information about the Gcc-bugs