[Bug target/115910] [15 Regression] ((unsigned)x)/3 with a range for (unsigned)x that does not have the sign bit set seems to produce much worse code

[cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115910

--- Comment #3 from GCC Commits <cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Andrew Pinski <pins...@gcc.gnu.org>:

https://gcc.gnu.org/g:dbd0eb39c690f80e7a9bb7697aaa3f85ff4dbadd

commit r15-3440-gdbd0eb39c690f80e7a9bb7697aaa3f85ff4dbadd
Author: Andrew Pinski <quic_apin...@quicinc.com>
Date:   Tue Sep 3 18:50:37 2024 -0700

    expand: Add dump for costing of positive divides

    While trying to understand PR 115910 I found it was useful to print out
    the two costs of doing a signed and unsigned division just like was added
in
    r15-3272-g3c89c41991d8e8 for popcount==1.

    Bootstrapped and tested on x86_64-linux-gnu.

    gcc/ChangeLog:

            * expr.cc (expand_expr_divmod): Add dump of the two costs for
            positive division.

    Signed-off-by: Andrew Pinski <quic_apin...@quicinc.com>