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 32DD13858C20; Wed, 25 Oct 2023 18:59:20 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 32DD13858C20
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1698260360;
	bh=a7qaRGEvjh/rm9BjKbTSy8XAzpKub0/Dbe0+6XJLaJA=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=JeXnj+MmI5baNVQmfXKGmoLIdA8mUf+SDcRUvdDYw/v4XCAEl3G9rLq2uoizjZoCr
	 PkBGHtpk5Fgylb7dT9PhReKq9YWUabaDyOmMQOwNo3D00WIwiuiPesITFmgpkRBUNR
	 8jmhU8SXOMTP0I9EMddLvghCR0FiSL6i+gyoa/qE=
From: "pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/95448] Missing optimization: pointer untag,
 re-tag should be no-op
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2023 18:59:19 +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: 11.0
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-95448-4-K20mThkChy@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-95448-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-95448-4@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=3D95448

--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
ranger (EVRP) produces:
    _1 =3D a_2(D) & 7;
    if (_1 !=3D 1)
      goto <bb 3>; [INV]
    else
      goto <bb 4>; [INV]

_1 : [irange] int [0, 7] MASK 0x7 VALUE 0x0
2->3  (T) _1 :  [irange] int [0, 0][2, 7] MASK 0x7 VALUE 0x0
2->4  (F) _1 :  [irange] int [1, 1] MASK 0x7 VALUE 0x0
2->4  (F) a_2(D) :      [irange] int [-INF, -7][1, +INF]

Notice how there is no mask/value info for a_2 here while there is for _1.=