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 5B0083858C20; Fri,  5 May 2023 07:43:45 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 5B0083858C20
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1683272625;
	bh=XY8LObzOqhMMBHraRd+ZqVTom9raNQ4Uv3ciB3uEHYA=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=jTxfsDYkhV6fdvAhcal/QHkeIG9SQbUYCH0cM5q4gKHgDIYad85SndQFxb4H0LlgD
	 3gw5zAg8ps45G5RJF9QTb/V9j6U4C9c9qlugQwldS1LVszglbCSgaDRq9Iz9stoZ7s
	 I9GkRoFVKf9FyamPBvQNmTYSmYOtF/dPEme/FOb8=
From: "pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/57755] Improve
 fold_binary_op_with_conditional_arg
Date: Fri, 05 May 2023 07:43:44 +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: 4.9.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: missed-optimization
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: pinskia 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: 
Message-ID: <bug-57755-4-WdOXOAV7KU@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-57755-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-57755-4@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=3D57755

--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
unsigned g(unsigned a,unsigned b,unsigned c){
  return ((a<b)?a:c)*3/42+1;
}

has a few related bug reports already.

Last example from the patch:
unsigned h(unsigned a,unsigned b){
  return ((a<=3D42)?b:0)&b;
}
PRE is able to optimize this so I don't think it should be done (unless we =
have
another pass which does similar to what I suggested in the first part of
comment #4).=