[Bug tree-optimization/96542] Failure to optimize simple code to a constant when storing part of the operation in a variable

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96542 --- Comment #9 from GCC Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Sam James : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:2e662dedf84aa23fdff7bceca040432bf9f1ab72 commit r15-2412-g2e662dedf84aa23fdff7bceca040432bf9f1ab72 Author: Sam James Date: Tue Jul 30

[Bug tree-optimization/96542] Failure to optimize simple code to a constant when storing part of the operation in a variable

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96542 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |12.0

[Bug tree-optimization/96542] Failure to optimize simple code to a constant when storing part of the operation in a variable

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96542 Andrew Macleod changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug tree-optimization/96542] Failure to optimize simple code to a constant when storing part of the operation in a variable

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96542 --- Comment #7 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Andrew Macleod : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:704e8a825c78b9a8424c291509413bbb48e602c7 commit r12-2381-g704e8a825c78b9a8424c291509413bbb48e602c7 Author: Andrew MacLeod Date:

[Bug tree-optimization/96542] Failure to optimize simple code to a constant when storing part of the operation in a variable

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96542 --- Comment #6 from Andrew Macleod --- Likewise, for unsigned baz (unsigned int x) { if (x >= 4) return 32; return (-1U >> x) * 16; } === BB 2 x_3(D) unsigned int VARYING _4 UNDEFINED : if (x_3(D) > 3)

[Bug tree-optimization/96542] Failure to optimize simple code to a constant when storing part of the operation in a variable

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96542 --- Comment #5 from Andrew Macleod --- I think this all goes away when multi-range is enabled. The original testcase produces: === BB 2 x_4(D) unsigned int VARYING : tmp_5 = x_4(D) != 0; _1 = (int) tmp_5; _

[Bug tree-optimization/96542] Failure to optimize simple code to a constant when storing part of the operation in a variable

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96542 --- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek --- As for COND_EXPR, if we do it that way, it should be rather keyed on a range with only two possible values in the range.

[Bug tree-optimization/96542] Failure to optimize simple code to a constant when storing part of the operation in a variable

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96542 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org,

[Bug tree-optimization/96542] Failure to optimize simple code to a constant when storing part of the operation in a variable

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96542 --- Comment #2 from Marc Glisse --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #1) > In bar, this is optimized, because fold_binary_op_with_conditional_arg > optimizes > 255 >> (x ? 1 : 0) into x ? 127 : 255 and when multiplied by two in unsigned >

[Bug tree-optimization/96542] Failure to optimize simple code to a constant when storing part of the operation in a variable

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96542 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 CC|