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 276B83858C83; Mon,  5 Sep 2022 10:19:35 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 276B83858C83
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1662373175;
	bh=J9PKEj9eEnbALgjVAQ7U2PZdsTWj5A5z5oWHZh1SKVU=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=J1CAdvhPPkUUHc1IwKts2nAnYf4mzsTK6Z8im2P0nGaBHdrEqefES/bEPBLNyF+oq
	 Ud644dvHVEIvfX3TsBKdCKl+AFK0GZYHBjswyKEl/Z1zaLb7ZGbya0eofFTSIvqxSV
	 tsszNfuhDUv6MpH9OuaZKehmy+X1T4FqGvtd4Vs8=
From: "rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/106822] "Boolean-or" optimization opportunity
 not consistently used
Date: Mon, 05 Sep 2022 10:19:34 +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: 12.2.1
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: missed-optimization
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: rguenth 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: bug_status keywords cf_reconfirmed_on
 everconfirmed
Message-ID: <bug-106822-4-phR2xneXUZ@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-106822-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-106822-4@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=3D106822

Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |NEW
           Keywords|                            |missed-optimization
   Last reconfirmed|                            |2022-09-05
     Ever confirmed|0                           |1

--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Confirmed.  The alignment consideration shouldn't apply in this case - the
MyStruct object is either there or not.  Note

typedef struct {
    bool a[];
} MyStruct;

bool f(const MyStruct *s)
{
    return s->a[0] || s->a[1];
}

would be a different story.=