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 A3C3C3858D35; Sun,  5 Mar 2023 15:41:36 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org A3C3C3858D35
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1678030896;
	bh=1/QRJfp4qSYnMfI8bPTT2UK/aQuyrgRQjYVIxHOp4cw=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=uDK9wOnG4ZM/emFLAkLqcuLITsHuj6HyAWyzi2OtykcGxxiXdOCtm22EeqZ6GfDQD
	 2/zPF7hTP4DfbS74DksaNi59UGOGBF63Qtr3FYV/k2A7yIyu12lOz7/3qcCbvMPICD
	 eHHmOUvwsKyFB6QIMu7OR4Gk8k3ouiiur7E1Hynw=
From: "dje at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug target/103784] suboptimal code for returning bool value on
 target ppc
Date: Sun, 05 Mar 2023 15:41:36 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: target
X-Bugzilla-Version: 12.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: missed-optimization
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: dje at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: jskumari at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-103784-4-PZ5zuXy32j@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-103784-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-103784-4@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=3D103784

--- Comment #11 from David Edelsohn <dje at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Have you looked on the GCC mailing list for zero-extend elimination (zee) a=
nd
sign-extend elimination (see)? The many, previous proposals for such passes=
.=