https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14753
Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Depends on| |85234, 110134
--- Comment #13 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #12)
> Summary of the ones still need to be done:
> comment #0:
> * foo
PR 85234 (I think)
> comment #3:
> * rshift_gt
PR 85234 (I think)
> * rshift_eq
PR 85234 (I think)
> * mask_gt
I don't think this has a bug #
> * neg_eq_cst
> * neg_eq_var
PR 110134 (just submitted a patch for that)
>
> comment #4:
> * minus_cst
I don't think this has a bug #
Referenced Bugs:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85234
[Bug 85234] missed optimisation opportunity for (x >> CST)!=0 is not optimized
to (((unsigned)x) >= (1<<CST)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110134
[Bug 110134] [10/11/12/13/14 Regression] (-unsigned1) != CST is not optimized
to unsigned1 != CST at the gimple level
