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 5817E385842B; Tue,  4 Apr 2023 12:12:51 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 5817E385842B
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1680610371;
	bh=3w7NYL+SQ0LmnmGetEgQiFO2JBZzXJv+xgxAW6XSzJc=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=i2n7a5+jYt358njSnD3ghAkruxgaE+sA/QKMC7PDekftB5AoJnDUZEUs+FnevZgFK
	 +WX79ATWOccGzuptCPjqeFS3fWls4D69vbn/LudCGH5GneQbbkyBqd4E8iXhw1lWKo
	 maaM+2rHiGzkmq+guFaz6Y3y7D5sZYWH6KXNm1wE=
From: "manolis.tsamis at vrull dot eu" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/109393] Very trivial address calculation does
 not fold
Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2023 12:12:50 +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: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: manolis.tsamis at vrull dot eu
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-109393-4-581FPWIKm3@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-109393-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-109393-4@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=3D109393

--- Comment #2 from manolis.tsamis at vrull dot eu ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> Note sometimes -fwrapv will optimize things because it can assume that
> overflow is defined as wrapping and this is one case that is true. Yes it
> sounds counter intuitive but it is true. Even re-association happens more
> with -fwrapv :).

Yes it is truly counter intuitive :)

Yet, leaving this wrapv behaviour aside, isn't this something that should be
always optimized regardless of wrap/overflow flags?=