https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114902
--- Comment #6 from Segher Boessenkool <segher at gcc dot gnu.org> --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2) > Looks like the issue is during combine. > > We go from CCGC with a sign_extend to a zero_extend with CCZ. that can't be > right. Why is that not correct? zero_extend is preferred over sign_extend, and both are equivalent when only checking for zero. Is there something wrong in target code here, perhaps?
