[Bug rtl-optimization/83123] Int compare - different asm code for different return type

2021-08-14 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs 
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83123

Andrew Pinski  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
 Status|NEW |RESOLVED

--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski  ---
Handled by 95731.

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 95731 ***

[Bug rtl-optimization/83123] Int compare - different asm code for different return type

2021-08-14 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs 
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83123

--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski  ---
This is now optimized at the gimple level to just:

  _7 = a_3(D) & b_4(D);
  _8 = _7 < 0;

[Bug rtl-optimization/83123] Int compare - different asm code for different return type

2021-08-14 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs 
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83123

Andrew Pinski  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Known to fail||10.3.0
  Known to work||11.1.0
   Severity|normal  |enhancement
   Target Milestone|--- |11.0

[Bug rtl-optimization/83123] Int compare - different asm code for different return type

2017-11-23 Thread segher at gcc dot gnu.org 
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83123

--- Comment #2 from Segher Boessenkool  ---
In the first case (with the extend to SImode) the extend is combined
with the AND, to an AND in SImode.  After that, the 3-insn combination
of the two shifts with the AND is something combine knows how to split.

In the second case this of course does not happen.

[Bug rtl-optimization/83123] Int compare - different asm code for different return type

2017-11-23 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83123

Richard Biener  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Keywords||missed-optimization
 Target||x86_64-*-*, i?86-*-*
 Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
   Last reconfirmed||2017-11-23
 CC||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
  Component|c   |rtl-optimization
 Ever confirmed|0   |1

--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener  ---
The first case is somehow optimized by combine while the latter is not.
The gimple is almost equal, so is the expanded RTL.

test1 (int a, int b)
{
  _Bool _1;
  _Bool _2;
  _Bool _3;
  int _6;

   [local count: 1073741825]:
  _1 = a_4(D) < 0;
  _2 = b_5(D) < 0;
  _3 = _1 & _2;
  _6 = (int) _3;
  return _6;

test2 (int a, int b)
{
  _Bool _1;
  _Bool _2;
  _Bool _3;

   [local count: 1073741825]:
  _1 = a_4(D) < 0;
  _2 = b_5(D) < 0;
  _3 = _1 & _2;
  return _3;