https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95102
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> One thing that should be done:
> if (_1 < a_4(D))
> goto ; [50.00%]
> else
> goto ; [50.00%]
>
>[local count: 536870913]:
> x_5 = BIT_INSERT_E
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95102
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #0)
> If you rewrite gcc.target/i386/pr54855-9.c to a form GIMPLE looks like after
> some PRE you end up with
I ran into this same thing when I was working on improvi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95102
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95102
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
OK, so one reason is that
if (!can_conditionally_move_p (x_mode))
return FALSE;
returns false for E_V4SFmode on x86. min/max detection is based
on fp_cmov expansion for scalar FP on x86 though (with
