https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120221
--- Comment #8 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Filip Kastl from comment #7)
> So this isn't specific for switches. Rather, this is some kind of forward
> propagation of a shift that we don't currently do, right?
Yes, it's basically an exp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120221
--- Comment #7 from Filip Kastl ---
So this isn't specific for switches. Rather, this is some kind of forward
propagation of a shift that we don't currently do, right?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120221
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|2025-05-11 00:00:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120221
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|1 |0
Status|WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120221
--- Comment #5 from Christophe Jaillet
---
Created attachment 61406
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=61406&action=edit
generated asm file
The generated output.
The first fuction has a shrq. A shift is expected here.
The 2n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120221
--- Comment #4 from Christophe Jaillet
---
The naming I've used is really bad.
function_ok() is where the code looks *NOT* optimal and function_ko() where the
generated code looks better...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120221
--- Comment #3 from Christophe Jaillet
---
Created attachment 61405
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=61405&action=edit
Reduced reproducer
With the attached file, I manage to reproduce the behavior.
The #define are the one
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120221
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120221
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
Keywords|
