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 A3EE63858C98; Sun, 19 Nov 2023 16:43:50 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org A3EE63858C98
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1700412230;
	bh=47pN1/fEU2lyzAB2oIsTLeJMpDFreh5STwnPChcGxdM=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=i58PqLu/GNH7JOQBSOGWgVK7d1iyRsZljgsqq8WUBYu8wHPrUR9gQBnfK/Pew30nd
	 Wqfh47NzsJh49bgSyz4YspKQ7KWsUh6xTmRReWyhix32x0iV+YAfzzHQLj7NG27ywg
	 rKPohmXKzXn0oW4iSfCD8RdigzALCYXUIRnaidho=
From: "pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/112324] phiopt fail to recog if (b < 0) max =
 MAX(-b, max); else max = MAX (b, max) into max = MAX (ABS(b), max)
Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2023 16:43:50 +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: 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-112324-4-pLRBwTIavN@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-112324-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-112324-4@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=3D112324

--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Sam James from comment #6)
> Someone filed a bug for LLVM for x <=3D abs(x) being always true
> (https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/72653) and it looks like we'=
re
> missing that too. Not sure if that's a dupe though.

Yes and there is no dup filed so far. Let me file about them.=