[Bug tree-optimization/108360] [13 Regression] Dead Code Elimination Regression at -Os since r13-2048-g418b71c0d535bf

["amacleod at redhat dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108360

--- Comment #4 from Andrew Macleod <amacleod at redhat dot com> ---
The IL is different in VRP2 between GCC12 and GCC13.  IN GCC 12 I see:

  <bb 2> [local count: 1073741824]:
  b.2_1 = b;
  _2 = b.2_1 <= 0;
  h.0_20 = (unsigned short) _2;
  _21 = h.0_20 + 65535;
  _22 = (short int) _21;
  _3 = _22 >= 0;
  _4 = (char) _3;
  f = _4;
  f.5_5 = (unsigned char) _3;
  _6 = f.5_5 << 4;
  e = _6;
  h_23 = (short int) _6;
  if (_6 == 0)
    goto <bb 5>; [50.00%]
  else
    goto <bb 3>; [50.00%]

  <bb 3> [local count: 805306368]:
  _8 = b.2_1 == h_23;

Global ranges for bb2 are:
_4 : char [0, 1]
f.5_5 : unsigned char [0, 1]
_6 : unsigned char [0, 0][16, 16]
h.0_20 : unsigned short [0, 1]
_21 : unsigned short [0, 0][+INF, +INF]
_22 : short int [-1, 0]

Looking at what ranger calculates for the edge 2->3 based on _6 having to be 0:

2->3  (F) b.2_1 :       short int [-INF, 0]
2->3  (F) _2 :  _Bool [1, 1]
2->3  (F) _3 :  _Bool [1, 1]
2->3  (F) _4 :  char [1, 1]
2->3  (F) f.5_5 :       unsigned char [1, 1]
2->3  (F) _6 :  unsigned char [16, 16]
2->3  (F) h.0_20 :      unsigned short [1, 1]
2->3  (F) _21 :         unsigned short [0, 0]
2->3  (F) _22 :         short int [0, 0]
2->3  (F) h_23 :        short int [16, 16]

It can determine that h_23 is [16,16] and therefore _8 is always false.  and
when you use _8 = [0, 0]  the condition leading to the call can never be true
so it's eliminated.

The code sequence at -Os is quite different coming into VRP2 in GCC13.  It
involves a PHI node and the condition uses _21 == -1  instead of _6 == 0.  
This cahnges what we can evaluate going out, and when we get to valuation of
_8, it sees:

_8 = b.2_1 == iftmp.8_28;

and iftmp.8_28 is evaluated as [0, 0][16, 16][512, 512]

Because 0 hasnt been eliminated, we cant fold the condition.

We do still get this at -O2... just not at -Os.