https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91775
--- Comment #7 from Kewen Lin <linkw at gcc dot gnu.org> --- (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #5) > > probably also a missed-optimization for the new doloop stuff? Thanks for the information! This looks a good case with zero doloop_cost_for_address, but the doloop dedicated IV would also suffer the TYPE_PRECISION issue pointed by Bin.