https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=124174
Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed| |2026-02-20
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Alex Coplan from comment #6)
> The ACLE does say that intrinsic implementations shouldn't introduce UB:
>
> https://github.com/ARM-software/acle/blob/main/main/acle.md#undefined-
> behavior
>
> > Care should be taken by compiler implementers not to introduce the concept
> > of undefined behavior to the semantics of an intrinsic. For example, the
> > vabsd_s64 intrinsic has well defined behaviour for all input values, while
> > the C99 llabs has undefined behaviour if the result would not be
> > representable in a long long type. It would thus be incorrect to implement
> > vabsd_s64 as a wrapper function or macro around llabs.
vabsd_s64 was discussed here:
https://inbox.sourceware.org/gcc-patches/[email protected]/#t
So I agree with Alex's reading here.
