https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101024
Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
See Also| |https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
| |a/show_bug.cgi?id=95699
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
After https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2023-May/617758.html, these are
testcases that fail if we remove minmax_replacement :
FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/phi-opt-20.c scan-tree-dump-times phiopt1 "MAX_EXPR" 2
FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/phi-opt-20.c scan-tree-dump-times phiopt1 "MIN_EXPR" 2
phiopt match-simplify trying:
num_2(D) != 0 ? num_2(D) : 1
num_2(D) != 4294967295 ? num_2(D) : 4294967294
num_2(D) != -2147483648 ? num_2(D) : -2147483647
num_2(D) != 2147483647 ? num_2(D) : 2147483646
This should be reasonable to handle minmax_from_comparison and handle eq/ne for
the cases where that is called.
FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr95699.c scan-tree-dump optimized "MAX_EXPR
<[^>\n\r]*9223372036854775808[^>\n\r]*>"
FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr95699.c scan-tree-dump optimized "MIN_EXPR
<[^>\n\r]*9223372036854775808[^>\n\r]*>"
These are a bit more complex though:
x.0_1 = (signed long) x_3(D);
x.0_1 >= 0 ? 9223372036854775808 (0x8000000000000000) : x_3(D)
x.1_1 = (signed long) x_3(D);
x.1_1 < 0 ? 9223372036854775808 (0x8000000000000000) : x_3(D)
