https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=122876
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
```
(for cmp (lt le gt ge)
rcmp (gt ge lt le)
(for op (plus minus)
rop (minus plus)
(simplify
(cmp (op@3 @0 INTEGER_CST@1) INTEGER_CST@2)
(if (!TREE_OVERFLOW (@1) && !TREE_OVERFLOW (@2)
&& TYPE_OVERFLOW_UNDEFINED (TREE_TYPE (@0)))
(with { tree res = int_const_binop (rop, @2, @1); }
(if (TREE_OVERFLOW (res))
{
fold_overflow_warning (("assuming signed overflow does not occur "
"when simplifying conditional to constant"),
WARN_STRICT_OVERFLOW_CONDITIONAL);
bool less = cmp == LE_EXPR || cmp == LT_EXPR;
/* wi::ges_p (@2, 0) should be sufficient for a signed type. */
bool ovf_high = wi::lt_p (wi::to_wide (@1), 0,
TYPE_SIGN (TREE_TYPE (@1)))
!= (op == MINUS_EXPR);
constant_boolean_node (less == ovf_high, type);
}
(if (single_use (@3))
(with
{
fold_overflow_warning (("assuming signed overflow does not occur "
"when changing X +- C1 cmp C2 to "
"X cmp C2 -+ C1"),
WARN_STRICT_OVERFLOW_COMPARISON);
}
(cmp @0 { res; })))))
```
Looks like this pattern is missing TYPE_OVERFLOW_SANITIZED check.
