From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48) id 0FD883858D3C; Mon, 28 Nov 2022 02:33:12 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 0FD883858D3C DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org; s=default; t=1669602792; bh=CniH1pLyuicMFXPFSTQRL5WUmpQspJyTdq7zRoYOIsE=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=LSvNbRvolO7DXe3xSS5u/7Uq25Kh7qSbYX4v4J7F7pt9KD6PZjgDdZpHsj/1G//ra dGwdZtG4+f4XQAQ9RBv3PwOzAfhhu1iLkLLDRlQq2jGn1I5ax6X3tC3bQkSQtwf1OR ICeToebZwHWzwBZ4+ed4rHtCwQIsA2SbciIZvOhY= From: "pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/107887] (bool0 > bool1) | bool1 is not optimized to bool0 | bool1 Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2022 02:33:11 +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: ASSIGNED X-Bugzilla-Resolution: X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: --- X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: bug_status everconfirmed cf_reconfirmed_on assigned_to see_also Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: 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: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D107887 Andrew Pinski changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Ever confirmed|0 |1 Last reconfirmed| |2022-11-28 Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |pinskia at gcc dot = gnu.org See Also| |https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill | |a/show_bug.cgi?id=3D107881 --- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski --- There is some discussion about this in bug 107881 comment #6 on how to implement this inside reassociation . I am going to try to figure out how to handle this there.=