[Bug c/104389] [10/11/12 Regression] HUGE_VAL * 0.0 is no longer a NaN
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104389 --- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek --- Ah, of course it isn't NAN, it is infinity, but +-Inf * 0 is still NAN.
[Bug c/104389] [10/11/12 Regression] HUGE_VAL * 0.0 is no longer a NaN
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104389 --- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek --- Changing it to double foo (void) { double a = __builtin_huge_val (); return a * 0.0; } shows ccp1 applies /* Maybe fold x * 0 to 0. The expressions aren't the same when x is NaN, since x * 0 is also NaN. Nor are they the same in modes with signed zeros, since multiplying a negative value by 0 gives -0, not +0. */ (simplify (mult @0 real_zerop@1) (if (!tree_expr_maybe_nan_p (@0) && !tree_expr_maybe_real_minus_zero_p (@0) && !tree_expr_maybe_real_minus_zero_p (@1)) @1)) So the question is why tree_expr_maybe_nan_p isn't true.
[Bug c/104389] [10/11/12 Regression] HUGE_VAL * 0.0 is no longer a NaN
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104389 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2022-02-04 Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Ever confirmed|0 |1 --- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek --- double foo (void) { return __builtin_huge_val () * 0.0; } folds since r12-6959 to return 0.0 instead of return NAN; already in original dump.
[Bug c/104389] [10/11/12 Regression] HUGE_VAL * 0.0 is no longer a NaN
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104389 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org Priority|P3 |P1 Target Milestone|--- |10.4 Summary|HUGE_VAL * 0.0 is no longer |[10/11/12 Regression] |a NaN |HUGE_VAL * 0.0 is no longer ||a NaN --- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek --- Started with r12-6959-g34afa19d29c5bf0b0f504e4d0aca4e9a8bc82c5c which has been backported to 10/11 as well.