[Bug tree-optimization/102392] Failure to optimize a sign extension to a zero extension

2024-07-16 Thread gabravier at gmail dot com via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102392 Gabriel Ravier changed: What|Removed |Added Target|X86_64-linux-gnu|x86_64-linux-gnu Version|12

[Bug tree-optimization/102392] Failure to optimize a sign extension to a zero extension

2021-09-20 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102392 --- Comment #4 from Richard Biener --- Note w/o explicit ZEXT_EXPR / SEXT_EXPR the GIMPLE for non-"natural" extensions is more costly (more stmts) than the "natural" extension based on the sign of the object because it requires an intermediate s

[Bug tree-optimization/102392] Failure to optimize a sign extension to a zero extension

2021-09-17 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102392 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|normal |enhancement Ever confirmed|0