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 C6D6C3858417; Fri, 21 Jul 2023 04:09:50 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org C6D6C3858417
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1689912590;
	bh=QF2Yh5quKxqrHZriI+DtH49gAA6r6n4We/Z7AeI2Fz4=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=enU6Xutf74W5s7v+2IdmcKRvjAMX5zlTMLizgxROLLR7FEymuFqZAbXvSbp7vFnmU
	 2RR7DzNA5W/jXNujRuMff1Y17rfXIeSXT4C4njWp/43Ee3Nn6XPboBnJ4nO5QOU8jx
	 eyM5FcF40JuFHnYEvj6lOGy7YrS2Y8JIPExk3jCE=
From: "pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/80574] GCC fail to optimize nested ternary
Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2023 04:09:50 +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: 7.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: missed-optimization
X-Bugzilla-Severity: enhancement
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-80574-4-uDXRMlS7QG@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-80574-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-80574-4@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=3D80574

--- Comment #10 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #9)
> One thing I noticed is that:
>   _2 =3D MAX_EXPR <_6, a3_7(D)>;
>   _3 =3D MAX_EXPR <_2, a3_7(D)>;
>=20
> Is not optimized at all.
>=20
> (for minmax (min max)
>  (simplify
>   (minmax:c (minmax:c@2 @0 @1) @0)
>   @2))

Submitted the patch for that as
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2023-July/625135.html .
Note after that patch we get decent code for the original testcases but it =
is
not fully optimized at the gimple level.=