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 E8E293858C41; Fri,  9 Jun 2023 22:28:54 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org E8E293858C41
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1686349734;
	bh=isdXq8e99hOoOTUfUFi0ci9ps/dpmJ4aPNLa5RgkayY=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=Aj+FGOt4cnsgo51rn2Swpnn11H7wG4xtS+yZG5qfINd19lJxSSpMXyghSoW8GnopF
	 YK1BgU2iuok1DvoMW1WPt6+hy3SccOWRIteTT1ihmBO/+yFljAt6mrm8+2oxqzO8Ij
	 jvxfTDha7Oa+S7rhEgybkc2czImuVTDVCshy/lOc=
From: "pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/88575] gcc got confused by different
 comparison operators
Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2023 22:28:54 +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: 9.0
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: dependson
Message-ID: <bug-88575-4-Y8BfvmSAtA@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-88575-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-88575-4@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=3D88575

Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Depends on|                            |110199

--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #5)
> So VRP handles floating point now but it still does not optimize it:
> Folding statement: if (a_2(D) <=3D b_3(D))
>  Registering value_relation (a_2(D) <=3D b_3(D)) on (2->3)
>=20
> Visiting conditional with predicate: if (a_2(D) <=3D b_3(D))
>=20
> With known ranges
> 	a_2(D): [frange] double VARYING	b_3(D): [frange] double VARYING
>=20
> Predicate evaluates to: DON'T KNOW
> Not folded
> Folding statement: _4 =3D MIN_EXPR <a_2(D), b_3(D)>;
> Not folded
>=20
>=20
> While the int does this:
> Folding statement: _4 =3D MIN_EXPR <a_2(D), b_3(D)>;
>  folding with relation a_2(D) <=3D b_3(D)
> Global Exported: _4 =3D [irange] int [-INF, 2147483646]
> Not folded
>=20
> Which is a regression from GCC 12 ....

I filed PR 110199 for that.  Maybe once that is fixed the FP case will work
too.


Referenced Bugs:

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D110199
[Bug 110199] [12/13/14 Regression] Missing VRP transformation with MIN_EXPR=
 and
known relation=