https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114932
Tamar Christina <tnfchris at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed| |2024-05-13
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |tnfchris at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- Comment #8 from Tamar Christina <tnfchris at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #7)
> Likely
>
> Base: (integer(kind=4) *) &block + ((sizetype) ((unsigned long) l0_19(D) *
> 324) + 36)
>
> vs.
>
> Base: (integer(kind=4) *) &block + ((sizetype) ((integer(kind=8)) l0_19(D)
> * 81) + 9) * 4
>
> where we fail to optimize the outer multiply. It's
>
> ((unsigned)((signed)x * 81) + 9) * 4
>
> and likely done by extract_muldiv for the case of (unsigned)x. The trick
> would be to promote the inner multiply to unsigned to make the otherwise
> profitable transform valid. But best not by enhancing extract_muldiv ...
Ah, merci!
Mine then.
