https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93806
--- Comment #37 from Vincent Lefèvre <vincent-gcc at vinc17 dot net> --- (In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #36) > We're actually careful about the sign of zero here when recording > requivalences for propagation. But shouldn't the use of -fno-signed-zeros imply that the sign of zero never matches (i.e. the actual sign is unknown, because unsafe optimizations could have modified it in an inconsistent way)?