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 1BE4A3875473; Thu, 27 Jun 2024 05:04:03 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 1BE4A3875473
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1719464643;
	bh=/fty3gtMFDoagLAhPajYdCxYpbSjZ8e484ye7W0G7pw=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=qbeSSiyjZg1WVVcu9BEYuRLi9AD+Ken/4AEY4I8S9oS8ztZRpfOheJyjs0gHSLvrb
	 VIEnhNderTqx0OuLxCzMP7t2fenCC//bcD6EO3hQF3BKrY8Iamzzr8x3zXoBrKIv6G
	 eBrPxWCDvoiiAgtrtCko7Gdi2pEXgKD6xDiJhP8I=
From: "pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug middle-end/115674] "Checking if number is within interval"
 missed optimization when number is from a smaller int type
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2024 05:04:03 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: middle-end
X-Bugzilla-Version: 14.1.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: missed-optimization
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
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: component
Message-ID: <bug-115674-4-PX7bNY9cU1@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-115674-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-115674-4@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=3D115674

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

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Component|tree-optimization           |middle-end

--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Worse:
  _1 =3D x_3(D) + 62;
  _6 =3D _1 <=3D 50;

Decent code:
  value_4 =3D (uint32_t) x_3(D);
  _1 =3D value_4 + 4294967102;
  _7 =3D _1 <=3D 50;

I think there is a dup somewhere ...=