https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106952
Bug ID: 106952 Summary: Missed optimization: x < y ? x : y not lowered to minss Product: gcc Version: 13.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: target Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: tavianator at gmail dot com Target Milestone: --- Created attachment 53580 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=53580&action=edit Assembly from gcc -O3 -S bug.c The following is an implementation of a ray/axis-aligned box intersection test: struct ray { float origin[3]; float dir_inv[3]; }; struct box { float min[3]; float max[3]; }; static inline float min(float x, float y) { return x < y ? x : y; } static inline float max(float x, float y) { return x < y ? x : y; } _Bool intersection(const struct ray *ray, const struct box *box) { float tmin = 0.0, tmax = 1.0 / 0.0; for (int i = 0; i < 3; ++i) { float t1 = (box->min[i] - ray->origin[i]) * ray->dir_inv[i]; float t2 = (box->max[i] - ray->origin[i]) * ray->dir_inv[i]; tmin = min(max(t1, tmin), max(t2, tmin)); tmax = max(min(t1, tmax), min(t2, tmax)); } return tmin < tmax; } However, gcc -O3 doesn't use minss/maxss for every min()/max(). Instead, some of them are lowered to conditional jumps which regresses performance significantly since the branches are unpredictable. Simpler variants like tmin = max(tmin, min(t1, t2)); tmax = min(tmax, max(t1, t2)); get the desired codegen, but that behaves differently if t1 or t2 is NaN. "Bisecting" with godbolt.org, it seems this is an old regression: 4.8.5 was good, but 4.9.0 was bad.