From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-156433-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 26562 invoked by alias); 1 Sep 2005 02:31:57 -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 26185 invoked by uid 48); 1 Sep 2005 02:31:52 -0000
Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2005 02:31:00 -0000
From: "pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Message-ID: <20050901023151.23673.pinskia@gcc.gnu.org>
Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug middle-end/23673] New: fold does not fold (a^b) != 0 to a != b
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-SW-Source: 2005-09/txt/msg00027.txt.bz2
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.sourceware.org>

These two functions should be the same on the tree level but are not:
int f(int a, int b)
{
  return (a^b) != 0;
}
int f1(int a, int b)
{
  return a != b;
}

They do result in the same asm though.

Another one from LLVM.

-- 
           Summary: fold does not fold (a^b) != 0 to a != b
           Product: gcc
           Version: 4.1.0
            Status: UNCONFIRMED
          Keywords: missed-optimization, TREE
          Severity: enhancement
          Priority: P2
         Component: middle-end
        AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
        ReportedBy: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
                CC: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23673