https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71636
--- Comment #1 from Richard Henderson <rth at gcc dot gnu.org> --- Oh, and I meant to mention -- if the target doesn't have an andnot insn, both formulations are identical in complexity and minimal path. Which might suggest *always* performing the transformation at a high level, letting the andnot be used if it happens to be available.
