https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110503
Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed| |2023-06-30
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> I noticed there is a missing optimization here (during VRP1):
> _29 = _11 == 0;
> _30 = (unsigned int) _29;
> _14 = -_30;
> if (_14 > 2)
>
> That is just:
> if (_14 != 0)
> or:
> if (_29 != 0)
> or rather:
> if (_11 == 0)
I wonder if the above will decrease the "size" estimates enough to optimize
this again ...
Oh and had:
# RANGE [irange] int [-128, 127]
_10 = (intD.6) _9;
# RANGE [irange] int [0, 1] NONZERO 0x1
_11 = 1 % _10;
I wonder if we could optimize `1 % b` into just `b != 1` (since 1 % 0 is
undefined) which will further reduce things here.
