[Bug target/106952] Missed optimization: x < y ? x : y not lowered to minss

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106952 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org,

[Bug target/106952] Missed optimization: x < y ? x : y not lowered to minss

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106952 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug target/106952] Missed optimization: x < y ? x : y not lowered to minss

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106952 --- Comment #4 from Richard Biener --- With the proposed patches for PR88540 and PR105715 I get with -O3 -msse4.1 intersection: .LFB2: .cfi_startproc movss .LC0(%rip), %xmm5 pxor%xmm2, %xmm2 movss

[Bug target/106952] Missed optimization: x < y ? x : y not lowered to minss

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106952 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Ever confirmed|0

[Bug target/106952] Missed optimization: x < y ? x : y not lowered to minss

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106952 --- Comment #2 from Tavian Barnes --- (In reply to Alexander Monakov from comment #1) > Note, your 'max' function is the same as 'min' (the issue remains with that > corrected). Whoops, thanks. Also I just noticed that GCC 12.2 does better

[Bug target/106952] Missed optimization: x < y ? x : y not lowered to minss

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106952 Alexander Monakov changed: What|Removed |Added CC||amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org ---