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 5C53B3858438; Mon,  7 Aug 2023 01:52:14 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 5C53B3858438
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1691373134;
	bh=adZLCMXyXlY8o6FK7EwBJTwsn20rbsa4kLYqAK/hvl0=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=sclwke71Ykr9VnmTC/5hFtoNuz5XnHlhJ6DW3H37mi1KAJjc4iG/uH84ZX2JPK+QP
	 8udiGCDhpKBR1x3XcPY0i3RkEHJMvAE3GhBInvPdnEQvpy1XNUsPxn/0khCVSeUsg8
	 NRGYAXbcRlkJBg5VeT+w9WJ9G4MYXPNqfVR/fmU8=
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 01:52:14 +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-AK09WqHtda@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 #10 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #9)
> +FAIL: c-c++-common/Wrestrict.c  -Wc++-compat  (test for excess errors)
> Excess errors:

This is just like the builtin-sprintf-warn-23.c xfail; well except there the
warning message was already correct.


Note if we change signed_range in gcc.dg/range.h to:
static inline ptrdiff_t signed_range (ptrdiff_t min, ptrdiff_t max)
{
  ptrdiff_t val =3D signed_value ();
  if (val < min || max < val)
    __builtin_unreachable();
  return val;
}

We get the same warning as we get with this patch. So I am definitely going=
 to
add/change the dg-warning here because that will be the correct fix.=