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 2E8C23858C50; Tue, 29 Mar 2022 13:41:04 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 2E8C23858C50
From: "amacleod at redhat dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/105086] [12 Regression] Dead Code Elimination
 Regression at -Os (trunk vs. 11.2.0) 25
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2022 13:41:04 +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: amacleod at redhat dot com
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P1
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 12.0
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-105086-4-tjL5XnkDuU@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-105086-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-105086-4@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
X-BeenThere: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Gcc-bugs mailing list <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/options/gcc-bugs>,
 <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gcc-bugs>,
 <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2022 13:41:04 -0000

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D105086

--- Comment #6 from Andrew Macleod <amacleod at redhat dot com> ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #5)
> Even wrapping multiple times as long as it wraps finite number of times
> should be  possible to handle, no?
> for (unsigned int i =3D ~0U; i !=3D 2; i -=3D 7)
>   ...;
> wraps 5 times and has 3681400539 iterations.

I think if we wrap more than once, we're probably looking at varying anyway=
 :-)

but yes, in theory we could be as precise as we want to be.=