https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98226
--- Comment #12 from Oleg Zaikin <zaikin.icc at gmail dot com> --- (In reply to Alexander Monakov from comment #10) > But why you are trying to use a more complex branchy expression in C++17 > mode when you already have a more efficient expression as a "fallback"? > > Note that a cheaper way is available: > > return (x+1) & ~x; > > (though gcc can optimize '(y ^ x) & y' you have to the same machine code) Thank you! We will try it.
