https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108516
--- Comment #5 from Levo DeLellis ---
Here's a testcase for the same problem
struct T2 { bool a, b; };
static T2 test();
int myfunc() {
auto [a, b] = test();
return ((int)a<<1) + b;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108756
Bug ID: 108756
Summary: Unnecessary instruction
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108162
--- Comment #3 from Levo DeLellis ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> Round 4 is because of this heuriheuristics. Name the function something
> besides main and try again.
I couldn't reproduce. fn has more than xor eax/ret.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108162
Bug ID: 108162
Summary: Missed optimization opportunity. Complex function that
starts with if (param == 0) return 0;
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108140
--- Comment #3 from Levo DeLellis ---
It's late and realized I meant to write rbitll but I can't seem to edit/correct
my post
Jakub ty I'll do just that.
Do you happen to know if clang uses the same sanitizers? I didn't seem to get
that on
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108140
Bug ID: 108140
Summary: tzcnt gives different result in debug vs release
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
