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 227AD3857C61; Mon, 10 Aug 2020 00:19:28 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 227AD3857C61
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
 s=default; t=1597018768;
 bh=eBjJVAnVu1051sRRV5o1yYm/F03OHHKBiAcwhd8ToMY=;
 h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
 b=Ie0h20gP/ccZ30ewgvGpcy4A/fa6x3AH5ZqzxmxN5HnYjxDpHHoKql2YjFWHe6YA2
 wd2OBJ0nhzOlLv+vQB+uZVPCSqYkKv65eleUqNNSvxLB7IioeSaKsD2DySHdD4W23a
 DTPS4tAjcn2h4l5A05ewvxDjC9VPVe2ph9Hbzxbk=
From: "gabravier at gmail dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug target/94892] (x >> 31) + 1 not getting narrowed to compare
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2020 00:19:27 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: target
X-Bugzilla-Version: 10.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: missed-optimization
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: gabravier at gmail dot com
X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED
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-94892-4-6MGvXP1BXs@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-94892-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-94892-4@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: <https://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: <https://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gcc-bugs>,
 <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2020 00:19:28 -0000

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D94892

--- Comment #4 from Gabriel Ravier <gabravier at gmail dot com> ---
Harald, for the specific code you wrote, I now see this from GCC :

f(int):
  test edi, edi
  js .L2
  jmp f1()
.L2:
  jmp f2()

So for that specific code, GCC has improved, though for the original test c=
ase
it has not. I must note, though, that this still means that either :
- GCC fails to properly optimize `(x >> 31) + 1`
- GCC fails to properly optimize my original test case=