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 393293858D35; Tue, 31 Jan 2023 04:55:06 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 393293858D35
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1675140906;
	bh=cW6kCQPEbsIyJuLaghM8v+tRXMXI4o6+mj9KR5ufGMo=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=oekGc/ejpYauox+TqsirFe4jwg2Ndi26wUrc5dUnSNRtBXTSqUgwuvI1XANAlUl13
	 y8J5QCSQ8rTytefrCDqLdyhRJ2/Mma0Cdaa4I8qgIuvuJHjpksJOb2GU1dkBvBS827
	 z/+dSbBP5SL53WL9BjWps4PHplUvIaKmyVMnofHg=
From: "pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/96921] Failure to optimize combined boolean
 not patterns
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2023 04:55:05 +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: enhancement
X-Bugzilla-Who: pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: ASSIGNED
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-96921-4-NWabzvXs4G@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-96921-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-96921-4@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=3D96921

--- Comment #9 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #3)
> So something like:
> (simplify
>  (minus integer_one@0 SSA_NAME@1)
>  (if (TREE_CODE (@0) =3D=3D SSA_NAME
>       && ssa_name_has_boolean_range (@0))
>   (bit_xor @1 @0)))

I ended up with this only in the end (I actually came up with this the seco=
nd
time too) as it fixes a regression The expanded one should wait and might be
worse.=