From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7352 invoked by alias); 25 Mar 2013 16:01:20 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 7104 invoked by uid 48); 25 Mar 2013 16:01:14 -0000 From: "felix-gcc at fefe dot de" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug middle-end/56719] missed optimization: i > 0xffff || i*4 > 0xffff Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2013 16:01:00 -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-Keywords: missed-optimization X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: felix-gcc at fefe dot de X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: --- X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-SW-Source: 2013-03/txt/msg01795.txt.bz2 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56719 --- Comment #7 from felix-gcc at fefe dot de 2013-03-25 16:01:14 UTC --- I filed this bug because I was under the impression that gcc was already supposed to optimize this out as part of the value range optimizations. You probably know better than me whether the required effort would be disproportionate. I'd still vote for supporting this case because then I can go around and tell people to worry about writing readable code instead of worrying about code that the compiler will compile well.