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 C78353858C74; Wed, 10 Jan 2024 10:16:02 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org C78353858C74
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1704881762;
	bh=xpEg1SeYfbSNa3MDn2+0x1mIuKmsxCy+Fk7q+b78efo=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=ZbQT4y6MliDDPilGYkZmKxBmeyCgTerN9j7wHK9tGFR59kofW/fGPIVkPvS9C98xN
	 DzphgsvhOsC82n0eikEgaqchRjn9bVXFczY4DuTvJbJ4rqwxODVmDAdT3aDabwGi8h
	 jR6AgRnBspVCKfuZ/8XNeQl6JdeSJsxw+P2dpW/g=
From: "pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/113301] [12/13/14 Regression] Missed
 optimization: (1/(x+1))/2 => 0 since gcc-12
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2024 10:16:02 +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: P2
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 12.4
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-113301-4-ki8sVnMmGD@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-113301-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-113301-4@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=3D113301

--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Thinking about if 1/x or (x+1u) <=3D 2 ? x : 0 is more conconial for gimple=
. I
suspect 1/x is . Which case this should be move to late gimple. I will look=
 at
that tomorrow.=