https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114090
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> --- Both the patterns look wrong for TYPE_OVERFLOW_WRAPS and the first one also for TYPE_UNSIGNED (the second one is ok for TYPE_UNSIGNED but doesn't make much sense there, we should have folded it to 0. Of course, the first one is unlikely to trigger for TYPE_UNSIGNED because MAX <something, 0U> should have been folded to 0.
