From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48)
	id 698383858CDB; Thu, 13 Jul 2023 18:27:59 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 698383858CDB
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1689272879;
	bh=+QwaPAjrioYceSebYjM4o2oNDx7kpiK3/lpmUA5kLdQ=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=CU6p2CN1vo81N6hegRPniZTz97v4wYF2QlO+cQ9L3IBEYczTF8NkjwuTqdxBWKAuT
	 jTKh6QfRFVojVpewk/W/1Wc/HjHyRQ/ihXtv4sy2sV0EtvwumBJCeRj39FX/1Tc+HL
	 3J1/fDx/P/b3/2b3tKFmi8qcsVPwF62hf+qBWmgM=
From: "pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/101240] [missed optimization] Transitivity of
 less-than and less-or-equal
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2023 18:27:58 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: tree-optimization
X-Bugzilla-Version: 12.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: missed-optimization
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-101240-4-cJhJ62DPzp@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-101240-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-101240-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.sourceware.org>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D101240

--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
here is a better testcase:
```
int test_array(unsigned (&a)[3]) {
  int t =3D (a[0]+a[1]+a[2]);
  ALWAYS_TRUE(a[0] < a[1] && a[1] < a[2]);
  return (a[0] < a[2])+t;
}
```
(just to make sure VRP is only dealing with SSA names).

We should be able to optimize the above to just
return a[0]+a[1]+a[2]+1;=