public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* [Bug tree-optimization/113302] New: `x == 1 ? 1 : (x == -1 ? -1 : 0)` should be optimized to `((unsigned)t) + 1 <= 2 ? 0`
@ 2024-01-10  5:59 pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
  2024-01-10  6:02 ` [Bug tree-optimization/113302] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
  2024-01-10  6:05 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
  0 siblings, 2 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2024-01-10  5:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: gcc-bugs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113302

            Bug ID: 113302
           Summary: `x == 1 ? 1 : (x == -1 ? -1 : 0)` should be optimized
                    to `((unsigned)t) + 1 <= 2 ? 0`
           Product: gcc
           Version: 14.0
            Status: UNCONFIRMED
          Keywords: missed-optimization
          Severity: enhancement
          Priority: P3
         Component: tree-optimization
          Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
          Reporter: pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
  Target Milestone: ---

Take:
```
int f(int x)
{
  if (x == 1)
    return 1;
  if (x == -1)
    return -1;
  if (x == 0)
    return 0;
  return 0;
}
int g(int x)
{
  if (x == 1)
    return 1;
  if (x == -1)
    return -1;
  return 0;
}
```

These both should produce:
```
int h(int t)
{
  unsigned t1 = t;
  t1+=1;
  return t1<=2 ? t : 0;
}
```

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/113302] `x == 1 ? 1 : (x == -1 ? -1 : 0)` should be optimized to `((unsigned)t) + 1 <= 2 ? 0`
  2024-01-10  5:59 [Bug tree-optimization/113302] New: `x == 1 ? 1 : (x == -1 ? -1 : 0)` should be optimized to `((unsigned)t) + 1 <= 2 ? 0` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2024-01-10  6:02 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
  2024-01-10  6:05 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
  1 sibling, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2024-01-10  6:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: gcc-bugs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113302

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

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
           See Also|                            |https://github.com/llvm/llv
                   |                            |m-project/issues/77558

--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
I Noticed this while looking into PR 113301 and I also noticed that LLVM could
handle f but not g  .

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/113302] `x == 1 ? 1 : (x == -1 ? -1 : 0)` should be optimized to `((unsigned)t) + 1 <= 2 ? 0`
  2024-01-10  5:59 [Bug tree-optimization/113302] New: `x == 1 ? 1 : (x == -1 ? -1 : 0)` should be optimized to `((unsigned)t) + 1 <= 2 ? 0` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
  2024-01-10  6:02 ` [Bug tree-optimization/113302] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2024-01-10  6:05 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
  1 sibling, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2024-01-10  6:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: gcc-bugs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113302

--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
This should also optimize to that:
```
int j(int x)
{
  int t = x == -1;
  int t1 = x == 1;
  return t | -t1;
}
```

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2024-01-10  6:05 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2024-01-10  5:59 [Bug tree-optimization/113302] New: `x == 1 ? 1 : (x == -1 ? -1 : 0)` should be optimized to `((unsigned)t) + 1 <= 2 ? 0` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-01-10  6:02 ` [Bug tree-optimization/113302] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-01-10  6:05 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).