https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104772
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> --- Sorry, 0x1.0p-1016 * 0x1.0p-1016 * 0x1.0p-1016 obviously should have been 0x1.0p+1016 * 0x1.0p+1016 * 0x1.0p+1016, I tested it on a testcase where I used different names etc.