[Bug tree-optimization/110755] [13/14 Regression] Wrong optimization of fabs on ppc64el at -O1

2023-07-26 Thread cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110755 --- Comment #11 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:21da32d995c8b574c929ec420cd3b0fcfe6fa4fe commit r14-2782-g21da32d995c8b574c929ec420cd3b0fcfe6fa4fe Author: Jakub Jelinek Date:

[Bug tree-optimization/110755] [13/14 Regression] Wrong optimization of fabs on ppc64el at -O1

2023-07-24 Thread aurelien at aurel32 dot net via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110755 --- Comment #10 from Aurelien Jarno --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #9) > Created attachment 55616 [details] > gcc14-pr110755.patch > > Updated patch. Thanks. I have just tested it, and I confirm it fixes the reported issue.

[Bug tree-optimization/110755] [13/14 Regression] Wrong optimization of fabs on ppc64el at -O1

2023-07-24 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110755 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #55594|0 |1 is obsolete|

[Bug tree-optimization/110755] [13/14 Regression] Wrong optimization of fabs on ppc64el at -O1

2023-07-24 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110755 --- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek --- Actually looking at IEEE754, the fix should be limited to +- operations, not +-*/. Because only for +- IEEE754 has: "When the sum of two operands with opposite signs (or the difference of two operands with

[Bug tree-optimization/110755] [13/14 Regression] Wrong optimization of fabs on ppc64el at -O1

2023-07-22 Thread aurelien at aurel32 dot net via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110755 --- Comment #7 from Aurelien Jarno --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #6) > Created attachment 55594 [details] > gcc14-pr110755.patch > > Untested patch. Thanks for the patch, I confirm it works as expected, now the result is a

[Bug tree-optimization/110755] [13/14 Regression] Wrong optimization of fabs on ppc64el at -O1

2023-07-21 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110755 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug tree-optimization/110755] [13/14 Regression] Wrong optimization of fabs on ppc64el at -O1

2023-07-21 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110755 --- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek --- A big hammer solution might be to treat flag_rounding_math in frange::set the same as !HONOR_SIGNED_ZEROS, i.e. always extend [0, x] ranges to [-0, x] and [y, -0] to [y, 0] because we don't know what the

[Bug tree-optimization/110755] [13/14 Regression] Wrong optimization of fabs on ppc64el at -O1

2023-07-21 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110755 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added CC||aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org,

[Bug tree-optimization/110755] [13/14 Regression] Wrong optimization of fabs on ppc64el at -O1

2023-07-20 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110755 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||needs-bisection, wrong-code