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 0F1DF3858C5E; Fri, 11 Nov 2022 15:07:40 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 0F1DF3858C5E
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1668179260;
	bh=/Vf/D6dlPV7mT8JJviR06Uh87JBIJRh0gwxwVoe9Kzw=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=SbOhcQD/hSCb18MlIhgYmD3zGY7cLtSO6lpuq4c90BZcAt5B/oo50Tg1BXDou9BuX
	 vHfmvBCPt5zN4SEI7mDIXRP/yWXO2iCNqUw5+CT+uWaKMDo+Q1vFCDwEaxrlDg32S2
	 hVORXALZNEleY9zcFMc7aY3yYdzcL9uYKAwldg4c=
From: "glisse at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug c++/107622] Missing optimization of switch-statement
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2022 15:07:39 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: c++
X-Bugzilla-Version: 13.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: missed-optimization
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: glisse at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED
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: 
Message-ID: <bug-107622-4-ycFSPra6Jo@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-107622-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-107622-4@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=3D107622

--- Comment #7 from Marc Glisse <glisse at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(Wilhelm, when you post testcases, please post the full file including the
#include lines)

(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #5)
> Did you try -fstrict-enums?

IIUC, even if optimizations using -fstrict-enums were implemented, they wou=
ld
only help with the first testcase if the number of enum values was a power =
of
2. For {A,B,C}, -fstrict-enums still considers 3 a valid value.

I have long wanted an attribute to specify that a particular enum is only
allowed to take the values explicitly listed, though I cannot find a releva=
nt
issue in bugzilla at the moment.


Comment #4 is an independent issue where gcc fails to notice that since the
static variable does not escape, it can be replaced with a local constant.=