[Bug tree-optimization/115202] New: [14/15 Regression] Missed optimization: std::min(f ? (unsigned short)m : a, ~0)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115202 Bug ID: 115202 Summary: [14/15 Regression] Missed optimization: std::min(f ? (unsigned short)m : a, ~0) Product: gcc Version: 15.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug tree-optimization/115011] New: [14/15 Regression] Missed optimization: (bool) (f ? 1: t) ==> 1 when bool t = (0 >= f) + x;

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115011 Bug ID: 115011 Summary: [14/15 Regression] Missed optimization: (bool) (f ? 1: t) ==> 1 when bool t = (0 >= f) + x; Product: gcc Version: 15.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug tree-optimization/115004] New: [11/12/13/14/15 Regression] Missed optimization for Dead Code Elimination

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115004 Bug ID: 115004 Summary: [11/12/13/14/15 Regression] Missed optimization for Dead Code Elimination Product: gcc Version: 15.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity:

[Bug tree-optimization/114972] New: [11/12/13/14/15 Regression] Missed optimization for Dead Code Elimination

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114972 Bug ID: 114972 Summary: [11/12/13/14/15 Regression] Missed optimization for Dead Code Elimination Product: gcc Version: 15.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity:

[Bug tree-optimization/114969] New: [11/12/13/14/15 Regression] Missed optimization: (bool)((std::max((unsigned long long) 0, (unsigned long long) var_0)) | ( var_0 ? 1 : 0)) => (bool) var_0

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114969 Bug ID: 114969 Summary: [11/12/13/14/15 Regression] Missed optimization: (bool)((std::max((unsigned long long) 0, (unsigned long long) var_0)) | ( var_0 ? 1 : 0)) => (bool)

[Bug tree-optimization/114967] New: Missed optimization: std::min((int) f, -a) ==> -a where (bool f, unsigned char a)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114967 Bug ID: 114967 Summary: Missed optimization: std::min((int) f, -a) ==> -a where (bool f, unsigned char a) Product: gcc Version: 15.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug tree-optimization/114823] New: Missed optimization of redundant loops

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114823 Bug ID: 114823 Summary: Missed optimization of redundant loops Product: gcc Version: 14.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component:

[Bug tree-optimization/114782] New: [Regression] Missed optimization of Induction Variable

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114782 Bug ID: 114782 Summary: [Regression] Missed optimization of Induction Variable Product: gcc Version: 14.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3

[Bug tree-optimization/114722] New: Missed optimization: !e*d*e=>0, affected by useless instructions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114722 Bug ID: 114722 Summary: Missed optimization: !e*d*e=>0, affected by useless instructions Product: gcc Version: 14.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug tree-optimization/114719] New: Missed optimization: conditional in loop is an invariant (a%2)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114719 Bug ID: 114719 Summary: Missed optimization: conditional in loop is an invariant (a%2) Product: gcc Version: 14.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug tree-optimization/114701] New: Missed optimization of loop invariant

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114701 Bug ID: 114701 Summary: Missed optimization of loop invariant Product: gcc Version: 14.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component:

[Bug tree-optimization/114651] New: Missed optimization: (c - y) + ((a - c) - (b - y)) => a-b

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114651 Bug ID: 114651 Summary: Missed optimization: (c - y) + ((a - c) - (b - y)) => a-b Product: gcc Version: 14.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug tree-optimization/114546] New: Missed optimization: ~m || n || m+2 ==> 1

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114546 Bug ID: 114546 Summary: Missed optimization: ~m || n || m+2 ==> 1 Product: gcc Version: 14.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component:

[Bug tree-optimization/114545] New: [11/12/13/14 Regression] Missed optimization for CSE

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114545 Bug ID: 114545 Summary: [11/12/13/14 Regression] Missed optimization for CSE Product: gcc Version: 14.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3

[Bug tree-optimization/112723] Missed optimization for invariants 'c+c' when c += -2147483647-1 and c is a global variable

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112723 --- Comment #3 from Yi <652023330028 at smail dot nju.edu.cn> --- https://godbolt.org/z/zKq3dsqW3 This is a regression since gcc-7.3. If the bisection right: https://github.com/gcc-mirror/gcc/commit/540b5cb6c70.

[Bug tree-optimization/114511] New: [Regression] Missed optimization: x = -y; x = c + x + y; ==> x=c;

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114511 Bug ID: 114511 Summary: [Regression] Missed optimization: x = -y; x = c + x + y; ==> x=c; Product: gcc Version: 14.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug tree-optimization/114508] New: Missed optimization of Dead Code Elimination

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114508 Bug ID: 114508 Summary: Missed optimization of Dead Code Elimination Product: gcc Version: 14.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component:

[Bug tree-optimization/114277] New: Missed optimization: x*(x||b) => x

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114277 Bug ID: 114277 Summary: Missed optimization: x*(x||b) => x Product: gcc Version: 14.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component:

[Bug tree-optimization/114230] New: Missed optimization of loop deletion: a=0||a

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114230 Bug ID: 114230 Summary: Missed optimization of loop deletion: a=0||a Product: gcc Version: 14.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component:

[Bug tree-optimization/114204] New: Missed optimization: -(a*!a) => 0 when a=-b-c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114204 Bug ID: 114204 Summary: Missed optimization: -(a*!a) => 0 when a=-b-c Product: gcc Version: 14.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component:

[Bug tree-optimization/114145] New: Missed optimization of loop deletion

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114145 Bug ID: 114145 Summary: Missed optimization of loop deletion Product: gcc Version: 14.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component:

[Bug tree-optimization/114009] New: Missed optimization: (!a) * a => 0 when a=(a/2)*2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114009 Bug ID: 114009 Summary: Missed optimization: (!a) * a => 0 when a=(a/2)*2 Product: gcc Version: 14.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3

[Bug tree-optimization/113801] New: Missed optimization of loop invariant elimination

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113801 Bug ID: 113801 Summary: Missed optimization of loop invariant elimination Product: gcc Version: 14.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3

[Bug tree-optimization/113716] New: Missed optimization: (2/a)*b*(!b) => 0

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113716 Bug ID: 113716 Summary: Missed optimization: (2/a)*b*(!b) => 0 Product: gcc Version: 14.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component:

[Bug tree-optimization/113714] New: [11/12/13/14 Regression] Missed optimization for redundancy computation elimination: -(w+d-x)-x => -(w+d)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113714 Bug ID: 113714 Summary: [11/12/13/14 Regression] Missed optimization for redundancy computation elimination: -(w+d-x)-x => -(w+d) Product: gcc Version: 14.0

[Bug tree-optimization/113440] New: Missed optimization for redundancy computation elimination because of missed judgment for unsigned overflow

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113440 Bug ID: 113440 Summary: Missed optimization for redundancy computation elimination because of missed judgment for unsigned overflow Product: gcc Version: 14.0

[Bug tree-optimization/113435] New: Missed optimization of loop invariant elimination

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113435 Bug ID: 113435 Summary: Missed optimization of loop invariant elimination Product: gcc Version: 14.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3

[Bug tree-optimization/113434] New: [13/14 Regression] Missed optimization for Loop Unswitch

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113434 Bug ID: 113434 Summary: [13/14 Regression] Missed optimization for Loop Unswitch Product: gcc Version: 14.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug tree-optimization/113433] New: [12/13/14 Regression] Missed optimization for redundancy computation elimination

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113433 Bug ID: 113433 Summary: [12/13/14 Regression] Missed optimization for redundancy computation elimination Product: gcc Version: 14.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug tree-optimization/113426] New: Missed optimization of loop invariant elimination

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113426 Bug ID: 113426 Summary: Missed optimization of loop invariant elimination Product: gcc Version: 14.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3

[Bug tree-optimization/113301] New: [12/13/14 Regression] Missed optimization: (1/(x+1))/2 => 0 since gcc-12

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113301 Bug ID: 113301 Summary: [12/13/14 Regression] Missed optimization: (1/(x+1))/2 => 0 since gcc-12 Product: gcc Version: 14.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity:

[Bug tree-optimization/113271] [Regression] Wrong code at -O1/2/3 since GCC-9 (could be due to wrong optimization)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113271 --- Comment #3 from Yi <652023330028 at smail dot nju.edu.cn> --- (In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #2) > -fsanitize=undefined is even explicitly mentioned in the bug report > guideline at https://gcc.gnu.org/bugs/. And the red banner in the

[Bug tree-optimization/113271] New: [Regression] Wrong code at -O1/2/3 since GCC-9 (could be due to wrong optimization)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113271 Bug ID: 113271 Summary: [Regression] Wrong code at -O1/2/3 since GCC-9 (could be due to wrong optimization) Product: gcc Version: 14.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug tree-optimization/113265] New: [Regression] Missed optimization for redundancy computation elimination may be due to constant propagation about 0 too late

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113265 Bug ID: 113265 Summary: [Regression] Missed optimization for redundancy computation elimination may be due to constant propagation about 0 too late Product: gcc

[Bug tree-optimization/113080] New: Missed optimization of loop invariant elimination

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113080 Bug ID: 113080 Summary: Missed optimization of loop invariant elimination Product: gcc Version: 14.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3

[Bug tree-optimization/112994] New: [Regression] Missed optimization for redundancy computation elimination because pattern is broken

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112994 Bug ID: 112994 Summary: [Regression] Missed optimization for redundancy computation elimination because pattern is broken Product: gcc Version: 14.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug tree-optimization/112746] New: Missed optimization for redundancy computation elimination (fre1(tree) for global variable)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112746 Bug ID: 112746 Summary: Missed optimization for redundancy computation elimination (fre1(tree) for global variable) Product: gcc Version: 14.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug tree-optimization/112723] New: Missed optimization for invariants 'c+c' when c += -2147483648 and c is a global variable

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112723 Bug ID: 112723 Summary: Missed optimization for invariants 'c+c' when c += -2147483648 and c is a global variable Product: gcc Version: 14.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug tree-optimization/112277] New: Missed optimization of loop deletion because of missed loopUnswitch and useless instruction elimination

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112277 Bug ID: 112277 Summary: Missed optimization of loop deletion because of missed loopUnswitch and useless instruction elimination Product: gcc Version: 14.0 Status:

[Bug tree-optimization/112123] New: Missed optimization of loop deletion because loop invariants are not identified

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112123 Bug ID: 112123 Summary: Missed optimization of loop deletion because loop invariants are not identified Product: gcc Version: 14.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug tree-optimization/112117] New: Missed optimization of LICM that might need to be combined with partial loop unrolling

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112117 Bug ID: 112117 Summary: Missed optimization of LICM that might need to be combined with partial loop unrolling Product: gcc Version: 14.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug tree-optimization/111780] New: Missed optimization of '(t*4)/(t*2) -> 2'

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111780 Bug ID: 111780 Summary: Missed optimization of '(t*4)/(t*2) -> 2' Product: gcc Version: 14.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component:

[Bug tree-optimization/111724] [Regression] Missed optimizations probably because of too early arithmetic optimization

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111724 --- Comment #2 from Yi <652023330028 at smail dot nju.edu.cn> --- (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1) > Yup, it's difficult. reassoc doesn't handle signed arithmetic, that's > usually the pass that optimizes association for invariant

[Bug tree-optimization/111724] New: [Regression] Missed optimizations probably because of too early arithmetic optimization

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111724 Bug ID: 111724 Summary: [Regression] Missed optimizations probably because of too early arithmetic optimization Product: gcc Version: 14.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug tree-optimization/111718] Missed optimization of '(a+a)/a'

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111718 --- Comment #2 from Yi <652023330028 at smail dot nju.edu.cn> --- We noticed one change between gcc-13.2 and the current gcc-trunk: https://godbolt.org/z/j5Mnvno9n In the following code, gcc-13.2 does not yet have the ability to optimize as

[Bug tree-optimization/111718] New: Missed optimization of '(a+a)/a'

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111718 Bug ID: 111718 Summary: Missed optimization of '(a+a)/a' Product: gcc Version: 14.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component:

[Bug tree-optimization/111640] New: Missed optimization of Loop Unswitch (Simple loops)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111640 Bug ID: 111640 Summary: Missed optimization of Loop Unswitch (Simple loops) Product: gcc Version: 14.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3

[Bug tree-optimization/111563] Missed optimization of LICM

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111563 --- Comment #6 from Yi <652023330028 at smail dot nju.edu.cn> --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #3) > (In reply to Yi from comment #2) > > (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1) > > > _5 = var_0_16(D) + var_6_18(D); > > >

[Bug tree-optimization/111563] Missed optimization of LICM

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111563 --- Comment #5 from Yi <652023330028 at smail dot nju.edu.cn> --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #3) > So this is again reassociation with LIM, the same issue as PR 111560. For this similar code, GCC works as expected:

[Bug tree-optimization/111563] Missed optimization of LICM

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111563 --- Comment #4 from Yi <652023330028 at smail dot nju.edu.cn> --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #3) > (In reply to Yi from comment #2) > > (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1) > > > _5 = var_0_16(D) + var_6_18(D); > > >

[Bug tree-optimization/111563] Missed optimization of LICM

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111563 --- Comment #2 from Yi <652023330028 at smail dot nju.edu.cn> --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1) > _5 = var_0_16(D) + var_6_18(D); > invariant up to level 1, cost 1. > > Basically because the cost is not high enough ... > > If

[Bug tree-optimization/111560] Missed optimization of available expression

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111560 --- Comment #4 from Yi <652023330028 at smail dot nju.edu.cn> --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1) > The problem is in this case: > e=a+b+c; //line 5 > f=d+b+c; //"b+c" can be replaced with the value at line 5 > > at the

[Bug tree-optimization/111564] New: Missed optimization of Loop Unswitch

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111564 Bug ID: 111564 Summary: Missed optimization of Loop Unswitch Product: gcc Version: 14.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component:

[Bug tree-optimization/111563] New: Missed optimization of LICM

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111563 Bug ID: 111563 Summary: Missed optimization of LICM Product: gcc Version: 14.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: tree-optimization

[Bug tree-optimization/111562] New: Missed optimization when the value of another variable can be used directly

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111562 Bug ID: 111562 Summary: Missed optimization when the value of another variable can be used directly Product: gcc Version: 14.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity:

[Bug tree-optimization/111561] New: Missed optimization of available expression in if condition

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111561 Bug ID: 111561 Summary: Missed optimization of available expression in if condition Product: gcc Version: 14.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug tree-optimization/111560] New: Missed optimization of available expression

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111560 Bug ID: 111560 Summary: Missed optimization of available expression Product: gcc Version: 14.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: