https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71078
--- Comment #6 from prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #5) > On Thu, 4 Aug 2016, mwahab at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > > > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71078 > > > > mwahab at gcc dot gnu.org changed: > > > > What |Removed |Added > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > CC| |mwahab at gcc dot gnu.org > > > > --- Comment #4 from mwahab at gcc dot gnu.org --- > > (In reply to prathamesh3492 from comment #3) > > > Fixed. > > > > The new test pr71078-1.c fails for arm and aarch64 because copysignl isn't > > generated for fabsl making the expected output fail to match. > > Is that a non-C99 target? If so add require-effective-target c99_runtime dg-require-effective-target c99_runtime didn't work. Apparently for long double, it is simplified to __builtin_copysign instead of __builtin_copysignl Applying pattern match.pd:208, gimple-match.c:1347 gimple_simplified to t2_3 = __builtin_copysign (1.0e+0, x_1(D)); f3 (long double x) { long double t2; long double t1; <bb 2>: t1_2 = ABS_EXPR <x_1(D)>; t2_3 = __builtin_copysign (1.0e+0, x_1(D)); return t2_3; } Looks like for arm, long double and double are same (sizeof (double) == sizeof (long double)). Since we first match for the double case, we end up simplifying to __builtin_copysign. Thanks, Prathamesh > > Richard.
