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 204103858C2D; Mon,  7 Aug 2023 00:26:40 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 204103858C2D
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1691368000;
	bh=+2UcBWMqgVZQ14QQMOzUYQeeryB6EUy3cKgZA0qC8ao=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=JxU6N45ZwH5uEPlShCjSFV819ilegMB9wY8jUZludYtLIRj3Wge6n6jHPRxIsf4/b
	 XgxtqP+QRhFJYVxlEmoZFJSX92S0Zj4Jn9uNU9sRQ22L+DV25O9HXqwqHAK2LLUHvF
	 c0lrc69dfCE1citSa4yOHYaiY5NQXrVOBex2DE+E=
From: "pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/109959] `(a > 1) ? 0 : (a == 1)` is not
 optimized when spelled out at -O2+
Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2023 00:26:39 +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: 14.0
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: 
Message-ID: <bug-109959-4-9u5kbuwUcJ@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-109959-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-109959-4@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=3D109959

--- Comment #9 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
+FAIL: c-c++-common/Wrestrict.c  -Wc++-compat  (test for excess errors)
Excess errors:
/home/apinski/src/upstream-gcc-git/gcc/gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/Wrestrict=
.c:684:3:
warning: 'strcpy' accessing 2 bytes at offsets [0, 1] and 0 overlaps betwee=
n 1
and 2 bytes at offset [0, 1] [-Wrestrict]
  T (8, "0", a + r, a);   /* { dg-warning "accessing between 1 and 2 bytes =
at
offsets \\\[0, 1] and 0 overlaps up to 2 bytes at offset \\\[0, 1]" "strcpy=
" {
xfail *-*-*} } */

Looks like the dg-warning needs to be updated and the xfail removed.
we have:
```
strcpy (a+[0,1], a);
```



/home/apinski/src/upstream-gcc-git/gcc/gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/Wrestrict=
.c:863:3:
warning: 'strncpy' accessing 1 byte at offsets 0 and [0, 1] may overlap 1 b=
yte
at offset 0 [-Wrestrict]

  T ("0123", a, a + i, 1);

In this case a and a+[0,1] can overlap for strncpy even for size of 1.

/home/apinski/src/upstream-gcc-git/gcc/gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/Wrestrict=
.c:866:3:
warning: 'strncpy' accessing 2 bytes at offsets 0 and [0, 1] overlaps betwe=
en 1
and 2 bytes at offset [0, 1] [-Wrestrict]
  T ("0123", a, a + i, 2);   /* { dg-warning "accessing 2 bytes at offsets 0
and \\\[0, 1] may overlap 1 byte at offset 1" "strncpy" { xfail *-*-* } } */

Just like the first case.=