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 2DFFF385800C; Wed, 23 Aug 2023 04:49:30 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 2DFFF385800C
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1692766170;
	bh=4874bxZuCNYnW0D8XVaxZnU0pkc/P5Aqgc6q0gtmC8Y=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=irYRpfCyeg8Gw3srYKq8EElI3+QwabTF98yD6JjKuk+VPzBfdwPyOdQhme0hIzWJ3
	 sVDfr3KqOLgKyGIcbxYJMj1zVfCu+J3JsBfZKnJKVEmZXVzdIGDxcDtE7Xmn7CCWlG
	 nlAtorUGQnIgVzVH8U6tSZPdk4J6xpac710nCaeA=
From: "pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/103660] Sub-optimal code with relational
 operators
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2023 04:49:30 +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: enhancement
X-Bugzilla-Who: pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: ASSIGNED
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-103660-4-5GH0w3NDdE@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-103660-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-103660-4@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=3D103660

--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #3)
> Note I think the patterns added in that revision were incorrect:
> +   (cond (cmp@0  @01 @02) @3 zerop)
> +   (cond (icmp@4 @01 @02) @5 zerop))
>=20
> allows for @1 and @2 (which by the way 01 and 02 is; just using base 8
> rather than base 10).

for floating point and guess what !(a < b) for floating point is not the sa=
me
as (a >=3D b). I will file a bug about that ...=