https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115092
Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Trying 15 -> 20:
15: {r105:SI=sign_extract(r101:SI,0x1,0);clobber flags:CC;}
REG_UNUSED flags:CC
20: flags:CCGC=cmp(r105:SI,0xffffffffffffffff)
REG_DEAD r105:SI
Successfully matched this instruction:
(set (reg:CCZ 17 flags)
(compare:CCZ (zero_extract:SI (reg/v:SI 101 [ gD.2776 ])
(const_int 1 [0x1])
(const_int 0 [0]))
(const_int 0 [0])))
Successfully matched this instruction:
(set (pc)
(if_then_else (ne (reg:CCZ 17 flags)
(const_int 0 [0]))
(label_ref 25)
(pc)))
allowing combination of insns 15 and 20
original costs 4 + 4 = 20
replacement cost 16
deferring deletion of insn with uid = 15.
modifying other_insn 21: pc={(flags:CCZ!=0)?L25:pc}
REG_DEAD flags:CCGC
deferring rescan insn with uid = 21.
modifying insn i3 20: flags:CCZ=cmp(zero_extract(r101:SI,0x1,0),0)
deferring rescan insn with uid = 20.
We go from `-(r101&1) < -1` into `(r101 & 1) != 0` which is totally wrong.
So yes, it is a dup.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 114902 ***
