https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30957
--- Comment #23 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org --- I've made the test-case pr30957-1.c match the current compiler behaviour. The test-case made sense for the time the committed code was working in the compiler. It then regressed at some point, and was marked as xfail. Xfailing means that the *only* information you can get out of this test-case is that foo returns -0.0 again. We're better off testing the expected compiler behaviour, which might also regress for all sorts of reasons unrelated to this PR. As a bonus, we stop generating core files for this test, which give us no information, and stop overwriting other core files that may actually have relevance and could be for failures that are difficult to reproduce.
