[Bug tree-optimization/120022] [Optimization opportunity] Related with Bug 119917 and 120020

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120022 --- Comment #5 from Jin Haobo --- Bug 119917 is another Bug which is submit by myself! But this issue has still not been resolved so far, and with no more reply.

[Bug tree-optimization/120022] [Optimization opportunity] Related with Bug 119917 and 120020

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120022 Jin Haobo changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|WONTFIX |--- Status|RESOLVED

[Bug tree-optimization/120022] New: [Optimization opportunity] Related with Bug 119917 and 120020

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120022 Bug ID: 120022 Summary: [Optimization opportunity] Related with Bug 119917 and 120020 Product: gcc Version: 16.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug tree-optimization/120020] [Optimization opportunity] Optimize repeated inline assembly operations when semantically equivalent

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120020 --- Comment #6 from Jin Haobo --- Sorry, the code in my reproduction is wrong. I will re-show the C++ code. This code is right, and Clang generate the right optimal assembly indeed.

[Bug tree-optimization/120020] [Optimization opportunity] Optimize repeated inline assembly operations when semantically equivalent

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120020 --- Comment #3 from Jin Haobo --- The code in my reproduction is wrong. I will re-show the C++ code. Reproduction C++ code (64-bit variable): #include using U = uint64_t; struct A { U quo; U rem; }; U myDiv(U const& a, U const& b) {

[Bug tree-optimization/120020] New: [Optimization opportunity] Optimize repeated inline assembly operations when semantically equivalent

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120020 Bug ID: 120020 Summary: [Optimization opportunity] Optimize repeated inline assembly operations when semantically equivalent Product: gcc Version: 16.0 Status: UNCONFIRM

[Bug tree-optimization/119917] [Optimization Opportunity] Inefficient code generation for multiplication overflow detection with explicit zero checks

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119917 --- Comment #4 from Jin Haobo --- The latest clang (trunk version) has applied this optimization, including 8/16/32/64-bit situation. Link: https://godbolt.org/z/aTbqGTPex

[Bug tree-optimization/119917] [Optimization Opportunity] Inefficient code generation for multiplication overflow detection with explicit zero checks

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119917 --- Comment #3 from Jin Haobo --- Thank you for your confirmation. I understand that the char/short cases are treated differently due to integer promotion. While I acknowledge that 8/16-bit unsigned integers undergo integer promotion which chang

[Bug tree-optimization/119917] [Optimization Opportunity] Inefficient code generation for multiplication overflow detection with explicit zero checks

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119917 --- Comment #1 from Jin Haobo --- Created attachment 61192 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=61192&action=edit test.cpp source code test.cpp source code

[Bug c++/119917] New: [Optimization Opportunity] Inefficient code generation for multiplication overflow detection with explicit zero checks

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119917 Bug ID: 119917 Summary: [Optimization Opportunity] Inefficient code generation for multiplication overflow detection with explicit zero checks Product: gcc Versi