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 2BC49385DC0D; Tue, 14 Apr 2020 06:44:31 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 2BC49385DC0D
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
 s=default; t=1586846671;
 bh=G92qkq5ZlK/xWWf/0fYQwzN1yTM7cJpEbrjCPcvLzEI=;
 h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
 b=ADx4y/a/JGH8igk1LoH8X76syH//SIkuLX6z2iKucnVovzw/cYjMsia7bKR/+7VIe
 VbsuUZWkO1eZCZO4/HssIgLOHla2UedI70DA3jEwZp6l8ZO9RJi2BaWLMWhhgu+z9c
 GGL1ZSKFKNbHu2GDJavfDHrSkrRpM7uOPYDgv4+4=
From: "rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug rtl-optimization/94543] missed optimization with MIN and AND
 with type promotion
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2020 06:44:31 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: rtl-optimization
X-Bugzilla-Version: 10.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: missed-optimization
X-Bugzilla-Severity: enhancement
X-Bugzilla-Who: rguenth 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: everconfirmed version cf_reconfirmed_on bug_status
 cf_gcctarget keywords component
Message-ID: <bug-94543-4-TYZvQovnYe@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-94543-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-94543-4@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
X-BeenThere: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Gcc-bugs mailing list <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/options/gcc-bugs>,
 <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gcc-bugs>,
 <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2020 06:44:31 -0000

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D94543

Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Ever confirmed|0                           |1
            Version|tree-ssa                    |10.0
   Last reconfirmed|                            |2020-04-14
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |NEW
             Target|                            |x86_64-*-* i?86-*-*
           Keywords|                            |missed-optimization
          Component|middle-end                  |rtl-optimization

--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
The issue is that we fail to have a proper representation of the target on =
the
GIMPLE level.  We expand to RTL from the optimal

  <bb 2> [local count: 1073741824]:
  # RANGE [0, 255] NONZERO 255
  _1 =3D MIN_EXPR <x_2(D), 255>;
  # RANGE [0, 255] NONZERO 255
  _3 =3D (unsigned int) _1;
  return _3;

but that produces

(insn 10 6 9 (set (reg:HI 88)
        (const_int 255 [0xff])) "x.c":1:56 -1
     (nil))

(insn 9 10 11 (set (reg:CC 17 flags)
        (compare:CC (reg/v:HI 84 [ x ])
            (const_int 255 [0xff]))) "x.c":1:56 -1
     (nil))

(insn 11 9 12 (set (reg:HI 87)
        (if_then_else:HI (leu (reg:CC 17 flags)
                (const_int 0 [0]))
            (reg/v:HI 84 [ x ])
            (reg:HI 88))) "x.c":1:56 -1
     (nil))

(insn 12 11 13 (set (reg:SI 86)
        (zero_extend:SI (reg:HI 87))) "x.c":1:61 -1
     (nil))

given fort the (unsigned int) _1 zero-extension we don't have any other
representation on GIMPLE to elide the zero-extension.  I'm also not
sure if (subreg:SI (reg:HI 87)) would be correct in all cases.

Marking rtl-optimization but eventually it's also a target issue.

We also don't have anything like a reg-note to tell ranges of a
set?  Anyway, even on RTL the range of reg:HI 87 is clearly visible.=