https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120081
Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed| |2025-05-05
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Confirmed. We give up at
if (!iv->no_overflow)
return NULL_TREE;
for the { n, +, 1 } IV. So this is a niter analysis issue (though
iv->no_overflow is a bit of a 2nd class citizen)