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 A66E338582AD; Thu,  4 Jan 2024 06:03:50 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org A66E338582AD
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1704348230;
	bh=fcNzHlH40/v7GfMa7OfR0zd+1yF7coBE3XqaVjdKv3A=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=Q8sV+BtcZtzZHn/yuNdrv1qJmlIWGLXQ9b6voiBFFQty8JGeNy4/2/UlnJjLWVvEB
	 T0xzrUU3/1B+2zGINVCunnLbcboI6mbflNLKjl+/e6W4Cma3qD7ltddM3V2h42VkgK
	 nQzGDUU2u171HAzpg8yKBGVLyvx3Nq+iS63Imsak=
From: "pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/113227] Maybe optimization (a>0) && (b>0)
 with or&<0
Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2024 06:03:50 +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: unknown
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: 
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: RESOLVED
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: INVALID
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-113227-4-Sp4veUjfZB@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-113227-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-113227-4@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=3D113227

--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Yes `(a > 0) & (b > 0)` is not the same as `(a|b) > 0`. I think we already
catch all of the related `(a CMP 0) &/| (b CMP 0)`; see PR 95731 for those.=