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 9A6C93858414; Thu, 11 May 2023 17:32:29 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 9A6C93858414
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1683826349;
	bh=PKs6+zaDZHpmvKpLDK0JfXOtDxyqyVuVks6Bqi5d+Dg=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=qWkYZJcVnViUn5gHFy/kEEJrDeHyW2SWPn5iqsaH5sqKqgt2yM3HYtNBSEQ3+vw6v
	 a6mo2QlpntzvRC2IvNtVBsJ1YXm/9hQyBN+fbFJPHhS9jXWN8TRmnTlOXCwhV6hKYz
	 JctRI4K7SKsIs7hjLAe8WTZz+iFb4sXcjY/syFPg=
From: "pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/108757] We do not simplify (a - (N*M)) / N +
 M -> a / N
Date: Thu, 11 May 2023 17:32:29 +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: 
Message-ID: <bug-108757-4-o1M2YtPADe@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-108757-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-108757-4@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=3D108757

--- Comment #21 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Jiu Fu Guo from comment #20)
> Interesting thing:
> the VR is always VR_VARYING, even for the below simple case:
>=20
> typedef unsigned long INT;
> INT __attribute__ ((noinline)) foo (INT x)
> {
>   if (x < 4)
>     return 0;
>   INT a =3D x + 18446744073709551612ULL;
>   INT b =3D a >> 2;
>   return b + 1;
> }

Yes that is because x does not have a "global" range.

You could try the following testcase:
```
typedef unsigned long INT;
INT __attribute__ ((noinline)) foo (INT x)
{
  if (x < 4)
    __builtin_unreachable();
  INT a =3D x + 18446744073709551612ULL;
  INT b =3D a >> 2;
  return b + 1;
}
```

Which gets a (global) range for x_1(D) during forwprop3:
  # RANGE [irange] INT [4, +INF]
  INTD.2750 x_1(D) =3D xD.2751;=