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 868CB3858C66; Sat, 12 Aug 2023 17:45:21 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 868CB3858C66
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1691862321;
	bh=T/1EDZMgmf+lfb0vGn/HI/IVFmHJ/xKfRumPvYJdbhA=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=cW6ZX1+cJ6vobL9eBAPZd15hZZFhhIfEXv83u0vaG3pwkQPxrDf52veGAAZ6tfauH
	 NHVZIQI5p364RWEuiazyY3IyT8x3/fEsQ11HEtv1H1Mg30Xr2s0h+p2vo1kBATCNH4
	 6CXW6L298xi4a/Iw22QNimQ2KG5UidU0MJtCM1Dw=
From: "pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/111003] [14 Regression] Dead Code Elimination
 Regression at -O3 since r14-2161-g237e83e2158
Date: Sat, 12 Aug 2023 17:45:21 +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: 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 everconfirmed bug_status
Message-ID: <bug-111003-4-rT7zVVkz1d@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-111003-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-111003-4@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=3D111003

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

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Last reconfirmed|                            |2023-08-12
     Ever confirmed|0                           |1
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |NEW

--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Confirmned.
The good news is the issue can be reproduced even without < (replaced with =
!&)
and m being initialized:
```
static int c, d, e, f;
static short g;
static int *h =3D &c;
void foo(void);
short(a)();
static unsigned b(unsigned char j, int l) { return j > l ? j : j << l; }
static int *i();
static void k(int j, unsigned char l) {
  i();
  g =3D f;
  f =3D g;
  for (; g;) {
    int m =3D 0;
    d =3D a();
    for (; d;) {
      if (l)
        if (!(j >=3D -639457069 && j <=3D -639457069))
          if (m)
            foo();
      m =3D !(10 !=3D (l ^ b(j, 6))) & (0 > e);
    }
  }
}
static int *i() {
  for (; e; e =3D a(e, 6))
    ;
  return h;
}
int main() { k(c, c); }
```=