From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-365444-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 7657 invoked by alias); 13 Aug 2011 01:39:38 -0000
Received: (qmail 7644 invoked by uid 22791); 13 Aug 2011 01:39:37 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.8 required=5.0	tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00,TW_GM
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from localhost (HELO gcc.gnu.org) (127.0.0.1)    by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Sat, 13 Aug 2011 01:39:24 +0000
From: "jimis at gmx dot net" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/19832] don't remove an if when we know the value is the same as with the if (subtraction)
Date: Sat, 13 Aug 2011 02:21:00 -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-Keywords: missed-optimization
X-Bugzilla-Severity: enhancement
X-Bugzilla-Who: jimis at gmx dot net
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P2
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: CC
Message-ID: <bug-19832-4-mrC9QisapB@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-19832-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-19832-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org
X-SW-Source: 2011-08/txt/msg01218.txt.bz2

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19832

jimis <jimis at gmx dot net> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |jimis at gmx dot net

--- Comment #3 from jimis <jimis at gmx dot net> 2011-08-13 01:39:23 UTC ---
I think that the logic in this function is expressed in complicated manner. It
took me some time to figure out what happens in various corner cases. The
attached patch I think makes the code more readable/maintainable, hopefully it
doesn't affect the function's logic at all. Runtime measured unaffected, if not
a couple milliseconds faster. Bootstrapped and tested on x86_64.

Thanks to Cristophe for pointing me here.