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 436593858D32; Sun, 13 Aug 2023 18:20:08 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 436593858D32
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1691950808;
	bh=tA/OuGx4jaGLRc4/DNK0ApThEpM1xMPffJ3g5nMEIYc=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=VIQp+Slz1m3HNpXqP/R/ozIuUSAr/HDf1y2ASPjHKKJjf3RdyX1zxs22YBkoKChFX
	 M6Va+yb+cLcUSWniUamRwFliH4RVWFL7pVZSa9HkZkM7d31cPuKg7tuHkG3mL/RTzt
	 IfzgygWwcMfCiuylGAmLldi8R+8HIXUVt8V0NPnM=
From: "pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/111000] [14 Regression] Wrong code at -O3 on
 x86_64-linux-gnu since r14-2944-g3d48c11ad08
Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2023 18:20:07 +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: wrong-code
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
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: 14.0
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: cf_reconfirmed_on bug_status everconfirmed
Message-ID: <bug-111000-4-InkyswItaT@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-111000-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-111000-4@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=3D111000

Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Last reconfirmed|                            |2023-08-13
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |NEW
     Ever confirmed|0                           |1

--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Confirmed, changed to make it self contained testcase and maybe understand =
what
is going wrong:
```
int printf(const char *, ...);
volatile int a =3D 68;
int b, d, e;
int main() {
  int t =3D a;
  for (; d <=3D 6; d++) {
    for (b =3D 0; b <=3D 6; b++) {
      if (t >=3D 31)
        e =3D d;
      else if (d > (647 >> t))
        e =3D d;
      else
        e =3D 0;
    }
  }
  printf("%d\n", e);
  if (e !=3D 6)
    __builtin_abort();
}
```=