* [Bug tree-optimization/14792] ((int)b & 1) != 0 is not folded to b & 1 != 0
[not found] <bug-14792-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
@ 2011-05-22 15:19 ` steven at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-02-12 9:21 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
` (6 subsequent siblings)
7 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: steven at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2011-05-22 15:19 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14792
Steven Bosscher <steven at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last reconfirmed|2009-04-22 23:16:25 |2011-05-22 16:50:25
Known to fail| |4.6.0
--- Comment #9 from Steven Bosscher <steven at gcc dot gnu.org> 2011-05-22 14:51:03 UTC ---
t.c.143t.optimized from gcc 4.6:
;; Function foo (foo)
foo (unsigned int a)
{
int b;
int D.1983;
<bb 2>:
b_2 = (int) a_1(D);
D.1983_3 = b_2 & 1;
if (D.1983_3 != 0)
goto <bb 3>;
else
goto <bb 4>;
<bb 3>:
bar (); [tail call]
<bb 4>:
return;
}
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread* [Bug tree-optimization/14792] ((int)b & 1) != 0 is not folded to b & 1 != 0
[not found] <bug-14792-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
2011-05-22 15:19 ` [Bug tree-optimization/14792] ((int)b & 1) != 0 is not folded to b & 1 != 0 steven at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2012-02-12 9:21 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-02-12 22:00 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
` (5 subsequent siblings)
7 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2012-02-12 9:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14792
Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot |pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
|gnu.org |
--- Comment #10 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-02-12 09:21:00 UTC ---
This is fixed on the trunk as we fold ((int)a) & 1 into (int)(a&1) in forwprop
though that causes other issues so I am disabling that folding and am going to
implement the folding of (((int)a) & 1) != 0 in forwprop.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread* [Bug tree-optimization/14792] ((int)b & 1) != 0 is not folded to b & 1 != 0
[not found] <bug-14792-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
2011-05-22 15:19 ` [Bug tree-optimization/14792] ((int)b & 1) != 0 is not folded to b & 1 != 0 steven at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-02-12 9:21 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2012-02-12 22:00 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-02-13 6:33 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
` (4 subsequent siblings)
7 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2012-02-12 22:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14792
Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|ASSIGNED |RESOLVED
Resolution| |FIXED
Target Milestone|--- |4.7.0
--- Comment #11 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-02-12 21:59:23 UTC ---
Actually just closing this as fixed.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread* [Bug tree-optimization/14792] ((int)b & 1) != 0 is not folded to b & 1 != 0
[not found] <bug-14792-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2012-02-12 22:00 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2012-02-13 6:33 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-03-22 9:12 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
` (3 subsequent siblings)
7 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2012-02-13 6:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14792
Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|RESOLVED |ASSIGNED
Depends on| |31531
Resolution|FIXED |
--- Comment #12 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-02-13 06:32:37 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #11)
> Actually just closing this as fixed.
Actually reopen for now, I have a partly better patch where we don't depend on
forwprop folding (int)b & 1 into (int)(b&1).
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread* [Bug tree-optimization/14792] ((int)b & 1) != 0 is not folded to b & 1 != 0
[not found] <bug-14792-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2012-02-13 6:33 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2012-03-22 9:12 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-03-22 10:29 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
` (2 subsequent siblings)
7 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2012-03-22 9:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14792
Richard Guenther <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Target Milestone|4.7.0 |4.7.1
--- Comment #13 from Richard Guenther <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-03-22 08:27:18 UTC ---
GCC 4.7.0 is being released, adjusting target milestone.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread* [Bug tree-optimization/14792] ((int)b & 1) != 0 is not folded to b & 1 != 0
[not found] <bug-14792-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2012-03-22 9:12 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2012-03-22 10:29 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-10-31 4:02 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-10-16 17:03 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
7 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2012-03-22 10:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14792
Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|ASSIGNED |RESOLVED
Resolution| |FIXED
Target Milestone|4.7.1 |4.7.0
--- Comment #14 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-03-22 10:19:53 UTC ---
As mentioned this was fixed in 4.7.0. So I am just going to close it as fixed.
The other part, I will just fix but it is less important I think.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread* [Bug tree-optimization/14792] ((int)b & 1) != 0 is not folded to b & 1 != 0
[not found] <bug-14792-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (5 preceding siblings ...)
2012-03-22 10:29 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2014-10-31 4:02 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-10-16 17:03 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
7 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2014-10-31 4:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14792
Bug 14792 depends on bug 15459, which changed state.
Bug 15459 Summary: [meta-bug] there should be a tree combiner like the rtl one
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15459
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|ASSIGNED |RESOLVED
Resolution|--- |FIXED
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread* [Bug tree-optimization/14792] ((int)b & 1) != 0 is not folded to b & 1 != 0
[not found] <bug-14792-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (6 preceding siblings ...)
2014-10-31 4:02 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2023-10-16 17:03 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
7 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2023-10-16 17:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14792
Bug 14792 depends on bug 31531, which changed state.
Bug 31531 Summary: A microoptimization of isnegative of signed integer
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31531
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|ASSIGNED |RESOLVED
Resolution|--- |FIXED
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread