https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114086
Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Component|middle-end |tree-optimization
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Jan Schultke from comment #5)
> Well, it's not quite equivalent to either of the bit-shifts we've posted.
The #c4 foo2/bar2 are functionally equivalent to #c4 foo/bar, it is what gcc
actually emits for the latter.
x > 6 ? 0 : ((85 >> x) & 1)
isn't functionally equivalent to anything mentioned so far here, as it handles
negative values differently.
