https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114932
--- Comment #17 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Tamar Christina :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:735edbf1e2479fa2323a2b4a9714fae1a0925f74
commit r15-1809-g735edbf1e2479fa2323a2b4a9714fae1a0925f74
Author: Tamar Christina
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114932
--- Comment #16 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Tamar Christina :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:25127123100f04c2d5d70c6933a5f5aedcd69c40
commit r15-1808-g25127123100f04c2d5d70c6933a5f5aedcd69c40
Author: Tamar Christina
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114932
--- Comment #15 from Tamar Christina ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #14)
> On Thu, 6 Jun 2024, tnfchris at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114932
> >
> > --- Comment #13 from Tamar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114932
--- Comment #14 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Thu, 6 Jun 2024, tnfchris at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114932
>
> --- Comment #13 from Tamar Christina ---
> (In reply to rguent...@suse.de from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114932
--- Comment #13 from Tamar Christina ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #12)
> > since we don't care about overflow here, it looks like the stripping should
> > be recursive as long as it's a NOP expression between two integral
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114932
--- Comment #12 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Wed, 5 Jun 2024, tnfchris at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114932
>
> --- Comment #11 from Tamar Christina ---
> (In reply to Richard Biener from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114932
--- Comment #11 from Tamar Christina ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #10)
> I think the question is why IVOPTs ends up using both the signed and
> unsigned variant of the same IV instead of expressing all uses of both with
> one
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114932
--- Comment #10 from Richard Biener ---
I think the question is why IVOPTs ends up using both the signed and unsigned
variant of the same IV instead of expressing all uses of both with one IV?
That's where I'd look into.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114932
--- Comment #9 from Tamar Christina ---
It's taken me a bit of time to track down all the reasons for the speedup with
the earlier patch.
This comes from two parts:
1. Signed IVs don't get simplified. Due to possible UB with signed overflows
