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 8469A3858CDA; Sat,  2 Sep 2023 21:15:45 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 8469A3858CDA
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1693689345;
	bh=E7HmaJN5rDKZc42UNWDcSkvBClJEBlzYxW8Nt1HfpDc=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=k3G26m6wTlHxermAIoNDAi8no1sDLwjypzTBGUaNSEv+YOlA8WYB1LGrqKrB+SkaA
	 UnLPYv7du4UuAYlY48eiUZBCsqnQMnNrK/x4OeeM4VwO5YFuKPelj4J8t9VRiQFQn/
	 9FrTN/IF7+wQ9ppPwOjq+QkMs8TVEjgvoGs1SFa0=
From: "pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug rtl-optimization/99199] [11/12/13/14 Regression] Very large
 boolean expression leads to quite a few return statements
Date: Sat, 02 Sep 2023 21:15:44 +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: 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: P2
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 11.5
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: cc
Message-ID: <bug-99199-4-afqBrLdc3I@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-99199-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-99199-4@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=3D99199

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

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org

--- Comment #11 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
  <bb 5> [local count: 234881022]:
  _1 =3D ~u_163(D);
  _2 =3D _1 & v_164(D);
  if (_2 !=3D 0)
    goto <bb 40>; [50.00%]
  else
    goto <bb 6>; [50.00%]

  <bb 6> [local count: 55050240]:
  _357 =3D ~v_164(D);
  _363 =3D u_163(D) & _357;
  if (_363 !=3D 0)
    goto <bb 40>; [53.57%]
  else
    goto <bb 7>; [46.43%]

This is literally just if (u !=3D v) goto <bb 40>; else goto <bb 7>;

```
int f0(_Bool u, _Bool v)
{
  _Bool t1, t;
  t =3D !u & v;
  t1 =3D !v & u;
  if (t) goto L40;
  if (t1) goto L40;
  return 0;
L40:
  return 1;
}
int f1(_Bool u, _Bool v)
{
  _Bool t1, t;
  t =3D !u & v;
  if (t) goto L40;
  t1 =3D !v & u;
  if (t1) goto L40;
  return 0;
L40:
  return 1;
}
```

These should give the same result but don't.
Let me file that as a seperate bug ...=