https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71078
--- Comment #9 from prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #8) > On Thu, 4 Aug 2016, prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > > > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71078 > > > > --- Comment #7 from prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org --- > > (In reply to prathamesh3492 from comment #6) > > > (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. > > > > I wonder if this is a bug in the pattern or in test-case ? > > I think this is what is expected and correct for long double == double > targets. > > > If double and long double are same, then I suppose it shouldn't > > matter if copysign would get called for long double ? > > In that case, should I add following target-effective-checks > > to the test-case ? > > dg-require-effective-target large_long_double > > dg-require-effective-target large_double > > > > Adding > > /* { dg-require-effective-target large_long_double } */ > > to the test-case makes it unsupported on arm-linux-gnueabihf. > > If you go down that route (and not simply scan for three times > copysign) please split the testacse into three. Committed r239149 which splits the test-case into three. Thanks, Prathamesh > > Richard.
