[Bug tree-optimization/99918] [10/11/12/13 Regression] suboptimal code for bool bitfield tests

[fkorta at gmail dot com via Gcc-bugs]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99918

Franek Korta  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||fkorta at gmail dot com

--- Comment #9 from Franek Korta  ---
Another simple example:
#include 

struct SomeClass {
bool cfg1 : 1;
bool cfg2 : 1;
bool cfg3 : 1;
bool check() const noexcept { return cfg1 || cfg2 || cfg3; }
};

bool check(const SomeClass& rt) {
return rt.check();
}

Emits:
check(SomeClass const&):
movzx   edx, BYTE PTR [rdi]
mov eax, edx
and eax, 1
jne .L1
mov eax, edx
shr al
and eax, 1
je  .L4
.L1:
ret
.L4:
mov eax, edx
shr al, 2
and eax, 1
ret

While it should:
check(SomeClass const&):
testbyte ptr [rdi], 7
setne   al
ret

[Bug tree-optimization/99918] [10/11/12/13 Regression] suboptimal code for bool bitfield tests

[jakub at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99918

Jakub Jelinek  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Target Milestone|10.4|10.5

--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek  ---
GCC 10.4 is being released, retargeting bugs to GCC 10.5.

[Bug tree-optimization/99918] [10/11/12/13 Regression] suboptimal code for bool bitfield tests

[rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99918

Richard Biener  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Target Milestone|9.5 |10.4

--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener  ---
GCC 9 branch is being closed