https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107046
--- Comment #10 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Yes. I should have changed the state on this BZ a few weeks back.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107046
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107046
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:8872df353884fec6d7ff0e8bf8eee356439ec8d8
commit r13-4504-g8872df353884fec6d7ff0e8bf8eee356439ec8d8
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107046
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107046
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107046
--- Comment #5 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
First, let's not focus too much on that specific test. There's others:
Tests that now fail, but worked before (20 tests):
rx-sim: gcc.c-torture/execute/ieee/hugeval.c execution, -O1
rx-sim:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107046
--- Comment #4 from Aldy Hernandez ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #3)
> Ah, probably the
>
> void test(double f, double i)
> {
> ...
> if (i != __builtin_inf())
> abort ();
>
> int main()
> {
> test (34.0,
