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 AD7523858D37; Mon, 26 Sep 2022 20:27:17 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org AD7523858D37
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1664224037;
	bh=p4672r5LkWWfsuwl14hb9BtswnGJ2ajmzq7A9VFATE8=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=azYjZTg5uUGegVO+X8HG1rKwVPxogZ3PcqAYYBaJC439+n5HNQUeXARD0+mM4jXQz
	 C1MNUIxU+HDien+D9fc/Qp1rx4a8g7IWYCmdh89X3crGSIF9DSUuYapTZANPRVN0tM
	 kihKjAcoY+WtJADWdwoHUtSjHL2pvP6eI4OFlvUE=
From: "pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/107043] range information not used in
 popcount
Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2022 20:27:17 +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: 13.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: missed-optimization
X-Bugzilla-Severity: enhancement
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: bug_status cf_reconfirmed_on everconfirmed
 bug_severity
Message-ID: <bug-107043-4-zkrpYuvsfX@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-107043-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-107043-4@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=3D107043

Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |NEW
   Last reconfirmed|                            |2022-09-26
     Ever confirmed|0                           |1
           Severity|normal                      |enhancement

--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Confirmed. The following two should be optimized too:
int g0(int n)
{
  int n1 =3D n & 0x8000;
  if (n1 =3D=3D 0)
    return 1;
  // n1 will be 0x8000 here.
  return (n1 >> 15) & 0x1;
}

int g1(int n)
{
  int n1 =3D n & 0x8000;
  if (n1 =3D=3D 0)
    return 1;
  // n>>15 will be xxxxxx1 here.
  return (n >> 15) & 0x1;
}=