From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-66264-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 30704 invoked by alias); 4 Aug 2003 04:00:33 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 30693 invoked by uid 48); 4 Aug 2003 04:00:33 -0000
Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2003 04:00:00 -0000
Message-ID: <20030804040033.30692.qmail@sources.redhat.com>
From: "pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
In-Reply-To: <20030214164600.9707.gertom@rgai.hu>
References: <20030214164600.9707.gertom@rgai.hu>
Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug optimization/9707] Unnecessary range test in switches with less than 4 cases
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-SW-Source: 2003-08/txt/msg00321.txt.bz2
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.sourceware.org>

PLEASE REPLY TO gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org ONLY, *NOT* gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org.

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=9707



------- Additional Comments From pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu  2003-08-04 04:00 -------
Here is a better version of this (f should produce the same code as g)
int f (int r)
{
  switch (r) {
    case 1:
             return 11;
    case 2:
             return 12;
    case 3:
             return 13;
    default:
             return 20;
  }
}
int g(int r)
{
        if(r==1)
                return 11;
        else if (r==2)
                return 12;
        else if (r==3)
                return 13;
        else 
                return 30;
}