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 F235D3858D38; Sat,  5 Nov 2022 09:04:40 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org F235D3858D38
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1667639080;
	bh=1w1fzIC7fIpKND32Zw7NUVJZVwde3EAXHcGXY+yQpfg=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=u3dD5igpv+0M/ZW3okt2kx4zoQdx5UtYNfLf+yQZU3IkD1B+oL8ZJ8Pe3JupoXK2d
	 A4GDPwalMEZ+MLvu4EpndWmkPa9wUydvRhnb2COJm0gfFHUSQPuWbSJjwaq4CgBInn
	 VdJEYlX8yJ2c6wjo5pRzHU6r3QVQkR8wiSXxwO+0=
From: "aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/55157] Missed VRP with != 0 and multiply
Date: Sat, 05 Nov 2022 09:04:38 +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: 4.8.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: missed-optimization
X-Bugzilla-Severity: enhancement
X-Bugzilla-Who: aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
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: attachments.created
Message-ID: <bug-55157-4-O5IXL54SY2@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-55157-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-55157-4@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=3D55157

--- Comment #12 from Aldy Hernandez <aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Created attachment 53831
  --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=3D53831&action=3Dedit
solution improving MULT_EXPR range-ops

Another solution is just improving the MULT_EXPR range-op entry.  This has =
no
penalty anywhere.

Though, I still feel we should reflect nonzero masks in the range independe=
ntly
of this :-/.

Either way, we can solve the PR.=